Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

NOAA Flight 42: From what I've gathered, a Hurricane Hunters flight had an engine failure in flight during a mission, but was still able to return to base and land safely, see Hurricane hunters#Other incidents . This does not merit a separate article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Aviation , Barbados , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Hurricane Hugo . The subsection of NOAA Flight 42 already explains in detail what happened. I don't really think a separate article is needed. Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 15:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and delete, possibly WP:SALT . This is such a minor incident, with no loss of life, as to be a footnote . Bearian ( talk ) 18:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Sly Cooper (character): Unless there's an angle I'm missing, it doesn't seem to be a notable character, let alone one with impact. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 22:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 22:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sly Cooper#Major characters . The height of Sly's popularity was in the early 2000s before widespread Internet coverage, so WP:OFFLINE sources likely exist where online ones don't. I found a couple of promising ones in Game Developer magazine [14] [15] . But, most mentions of Sly appear to be about the game or its story as a whole. I do think there's enough to merit a list of characters and would encourage the cleanup and recreation of List of Sly Cooper characters with sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I like the guy, and I'd be pretty happy if some stronger reception came out for him, and maybe one day I'll take another look, just in case. But for now, he's unfortunately lacking. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 15:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Unless something more turns up, Sly just doesn't have enough to divorce him from the rest of his series in terms of an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or merge per above. Some of these awards are WP:SIGCOV , but I've always felt that an article requires both a quality and quantity of reliable coverage. (See: WP:MINIMUMCOV .) The series is literally about the character, so that is a good WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 02:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Considering Sly Cooper's peak popularity in the early 2000s and the potential availability of offline sources, such as Game Developer magazine, the proposal to merge Sly into the Major characters section of the main Sly Cooper article appears reasonable. This approach ensures that information about Sly is still covered within the broader context of the series. Given the character's historical significance, merging allows for a more consolidated and comprehensive representation without the need for a standalone article. KarKuZoNga ( talk ) 04:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am almost sure that this is an AI-generated summary of the comments above, particularly looking at @ Zxcvbnm 's comment. See this user's other AfD contributions and all of them are just summaries of other's comments written in a very AI style. GraziePrego ( talk ) 05:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga ( talk ) 10:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is absolutely not written by the same "person" who wrote the ! vote above. -- asilvering ( talk ) 08:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Freddie Slater (EastEnders): Citadeol (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if kept, the article should be moved to Freddie Slater , which has always been a redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2004) , so no merging required. Wikishovel ( talk ) 11:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2004)#Freddie Slater . Info from article stolen from the list article without attribution and not developed enough to meet GNG. – Meena • 11:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to List of EastEnders characters (2004)#Freddie Slater and restore the content there. Usually I would say that it can be kept and developed, as the character is notable enough for his own article (especially as the actor just won a NTA for the role) but since the content was taken without attribution or development I say that it should be restored back to the list page, unless the correct attribution is given in the talk page and the page is developed further. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 13:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : Per A10 . The article is almost entirely copied from List of EastEnders characters (2004)#Freddie Slater without attribution or significant added value. Since the redirect Freddie Slater already exists, I don't see the value in keeping this as a redirect either. StartOkayStop ( talk ) 16:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect . Slater does not meet our notability requirements for standalone articles. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 16:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a short summary to List of EastEnders characters . Not to sublist like List of EastEnders characters (2004) because such weird sublists are not notable and need to be merged or deleted. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am in favor of retaining this page. At a time of the rapid development both of the East Enders contorted plot line, and the exciting appearance of the actor on Strictly Come Dancing, it is very helpful to have all the information about characters and performers that one can get! Foiled circuitous wanderer ( talk ) 09:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Wild Gals A Go-Go: Fails the general and album-specific notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan . UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Acid Mothers Temple discography . I could not find enough sources to support a standalone article. Jfire ( talk ) 02:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Acid Mothers Temple discography per WP:ATD . 4meter4 ( talk ) 23:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Roboto (character): 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 11:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 11:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters . Seems very niche based on content in article, 10+ place in rankings in listicles on popularity, etc. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the character list; the few sources from the "Reception" area could be included there. I actually found the character pretty neat, but he is a secondary figure across the franchise with little attention afforded to him.-- PanagiotisZois ( talk ) 13:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to character list per Piotrus. The sources only mention it in context of the series, and it isn't separately WP:NOTABLE . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters per the above discussion. Aoba47 ( talk ) 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters . A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 10:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Rob Beckley: There is the possibility of a merge/redirect to Pillar, however 'Rob Beckley' is ambiguous (there is Rob Beckley (police officer) , and a merge might unbalance this article. Boleyn ( talk ) 18:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kansas . Owen× ☎ 19:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to Pillar (band) as not independently notable imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge properly sourced summary to Pillar (band) . BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth and are in connection with the proposed target. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 14:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Multiplicity (psychology): lizthegrey ( talk ) 01:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Psychology . lizthegrey ( talk ) 01:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Multiplicity (subculture) , rather than to Dissociative identity disorder . The original proposal to remove the article is correct that we shouldn't have two articles about the same psychological phenomenon, but I think people are better served by a direction to (subculture) than to DID. subculture already links to DID, and subculture and psychology aspects are not sufficiently distinct to deserve their own articles. lizthegrey ( talk ) 02:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Multiplicity (subculture) : There is a sizeable overlap between the community and the psychological state of being plural. Since both of these articles are very short, it would make sense to discuss both aspects in the same place. One could debate as to which title the resulting article should be under, but that is another debate for another day. Similarly, any attempt to merge the resulting article into dissociative identity disorder would probably require another discussion. ― Susmuffin Talk 09:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Unclear to me whether the parenthetical "(psychology)" is appropriately disambiguated to the subculture article. There don't seem to be a lot of sources which say that psychology recognizes "multiplicity" as a group identifier -- which isn't surprising as psychology is pretty individualistic when it comes right down to it. As far as I can tell, DID remains the main organizing principle for this concept within the context of psychology. An alternative would be to Delete the redirect entirely as it is not clear to me that this is a normal search term. jps ( talk ) 17:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Multiplicity (subculture) per Lizthegrey. Some1 ( talk ) 18:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

An Se-wook: Simione001 ( talk ) 00:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 00:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Karnataka ( talk ) 09:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per new sources below. AGF and trusting they show the significant coverage claimed. Giant Snowman 07:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Sources have been found @ GiantSnowman . He was the joint head coach of the united Korean youth football team in 1991 which received significant, continuing coverage. Here are multiple instances of coverage: [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , etc. :3 F4U ( they /it ) 12:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , GiantSnowman , the sources from above are definitely not SIGCOV: 1) merely repeats what Ahn said with zero coverage of him N ; 2) is a single trivial mention N ; 3) is a rehash of a press release from NK stating it had given Ahn an award, with no SIGCOV of him to boot N ; 4) is a trivial mention plus a quote in a news broadcast transcript N . JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay I apologize regarding the first source, I was under the impression that SIGCOV of his coaching strategy was equivalent to SIGCOV of An himself. I've found a more in-depth source about Coach An himself [34] . I'm sure I can find more, there's a lot of sourcing on him. :3 F4U ( they /it ) 13:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please find more sources, and in future do not present trivial sources as significant. Giant Snowman 15:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - If he represented during the 1976 Olympics, I'd say he's notable. More citations on him and his coverage is definitely needed though IowaBird ( talk ) 19:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commment I've just discovered something. An Se-uk <- This is the same guy. The articles need to merged together. :3 F4U ( they /it ) 15:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The merged title should be An Se-uk following MOS:KO which states that we should use MR romanization when there's no accepted English common name. :3 F4U ( they /it ) 15:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think An Se-uk should be a redirect to here, Since this page has more info IowaBird ( talk ) 19:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per F4U. Clearly significant figure in North Korean football. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources showing GNG being passed (threshold for 1970s North Korean footballers must be taken into account), and merge with An Se-uk as it is the same guy. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 01:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Three deletes, four keeps, and a merge - I don't see a clear consensus here. Relisting for a second time to hopefully garner some more discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 11:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If kept, there's already a clear consensus for a merge because the two articles are about the same person. Really what we're discussing here is whether or not both An Se-wook and An Se-uk should be deleted. :3 F4U ( they /it ) 18:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article in the Korea wikipedia only mentions him, but because he was the coach of a combined Korean team in 1991, he comes up a lot, and not as a WP:BLP1E . He's also from a place where it's difficult to get information about. This will probably always be a stub, but there's enough out there for a good encyclopedia article. It should also be merged - I have no opinion on which article gets merged where, just that we maintain all the information here. SportingFlyer T · C 20:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merger. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - @ Liz : if the result is keep, you can close it now. A merger will have to be performed, it's not a question of discussion, there are currently two articles for the same person. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 19:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly this. I did already state this above, but we currently have two duplicative articles about the same person (because his name can be romanized in more than one way). :3 F4U ( they /it ) 13:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

National Registry Emergency Medical Technician: Personhumanperson ( talk ) 17:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article just describes EMTs in the United States. Most, if not all, of the details in this article are either told in the page for EMTs , or the page for the organization which administers the certification . Not only that, but the page lacks notability. Most of the sources cited, besides a couple which aren't related to the general topic, are primary sources from organizations that administer the certification, or the NREMT itself. Personhumanperson ( talk ) 16:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians per nom. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 20:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. Note that this article duplicates info at Emergency_medical_technician#United_States . LizardJr8 ( talk ) 20:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

2022 Asian Para Games closing ceremony: Previously PRODed, controversial page (see the edit history) but does not provide any sources. Restore the redirect to 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony per Special:PermanentLink/1182487023 . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Events , and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony ; there's some coverage , but likely fails to satisfy WP:NEVENT criteria for its own article, particularly on the grounds of WP:LASTING , WP:PERSISTENCE , and WP:DIVERSE . Left guide ( talk ) 00:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – Per Left guide . Svartner ( talk ) 12:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – Per Left guide . Roger (Dodger67) ( talk ) 13:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2022 Asian Para Games#Closing ceremony , which already covers this ceremony. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Killing of Jesse Kirby and John Kirby: They liberated themselves, and were apprehended again, as reported at the time in the newspapers. If this hasn't received significant attention afterwards, it shouldn't be treated any differently than how we treat the many crimes or human interest stories which get some attention in the newspapers nowadays, but which we don't consider suitable for an article here. I couldn't find anything in Google Books, and the article offers no other indication that this is a case which has been discussed afterwards and is more than just a short burst of (mostly identical) news reports. Creator indicates that they "can't find this in any quality secondary sources" but preferred an AfD over Prod to get more eyes on it. Fram ( talk ) 15:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Discrimination , History , and Georgia (U.S. state) . Fram ( talk ) 15:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP . Seemed notable instance of slave rebellion in the United States , enough to warrant a mention in The Liberator and a reward from the governor. If not substantial enough for a standalone, would it be considered encyclopedic in some other form? List? Subsection of other page? Thoughts invited. jengod ( talk ) 15:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two slaves killing their owner and fleeing is hardly a "slave rebellion". Fram ( talk ) 15:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They killed two owners, who had recently purchased them and were moving them three states south! I think certainly slave resistance in the United States bc this wasn't just "I don't like you personally and I want your money" -- IMHO the slave trade in the United States part is key here. There were a number of on-ship Slave rebellions including the coastwise Creole case but men in an overland coffle overpowering their enslavers is fundamentally interesting IMHO. jengod ( talk ) 15:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/merge I found this 2016 dissertation which discusses it for 2 pages [35] . If discussion agrees on deletion for a stand alone article, then I hope the content will be merged to an appropriate location rather than deleted entirely. -- User:Namiba 15:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks so much for surfacing this Namiba . I expanded w material therein. jengod ( talk ) 17:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or at least Merge into History of slavery in Georgia , where there is a dearth of information about slave trading and slavery law between statehood and the civil war. Even Slave trade in the United States covers the situation in Georgia better, and is another merger target, too. This article is an example of inter-state slave trading that was going on at the time, despite it being illegal in Georgia. Preserve the statement about the law, as a minimum, because that meets WP:SUSTAINED , even if the rest of the article does not. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 12:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to History of slavery in Georgia . I would like to see more than a single dissertation to convince me that there was sustained coverage of this event. That being said, I think this is a useful example to mention in a larger article as Cameron Dewe notes. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 17:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I just created a section of History of slavery in Georgia#Domestic slave trade with info about the Kirbys, the Hamburg SC slave market, and a case in Savannah in 1843, so if result is merge, that would be a suitable redirect target.  :) Cheers jengod ( talk ) 19:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks good to me! Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Lincoln Mystery Plays: Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Prod removal mentions two sources [9] [10] but these are purely local, containing identical quotes and are comprised primarily of quotes from the director and publicity material. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 13:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Lincoln Cathedral : Not notable alone, could be merged with the cathedral article, all coverage found relates to it anyway Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively with Lincoln Cathedral as not independently notable fir a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Pilot (Helluva Boss): The episodes are not covered in depth to warrant a standalone article. SWinxy ( talk ) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the other episodes for the same reason: Murder Family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Loo Loo Land ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) The Circus (Helluva Boss) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , Webcomics , and Internet . SWinxy ( talk ) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all – All these articles are using the same sources, which I think is a strong indication that they're all one subject. Most of the sources are primary, while others are about the show as a whole (or even more about Hazbin Hotel ). There's not much here. I think the use of this source in "The Circus" is particularly egregious... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect just " The Circus " for now until a little more referencing can be added (I was thinking it might need a little more), but Keep the rest; the pilot in particular has six+ independent sources and does pass WP:GNG , along with " Murder Family " and " Loo Loo Land ", which only use the same two references about the Ursa Major Award they were nominated for because they were nominated for the same award in the same year, while "The Circus" was nominated for that award two years later. 113.30.191.65 ( talk ) 08:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even for the pilot, which came out a year before the series was confirmed, I can't really find much dedicated sources. I'm not convinced The Geek Waffle is a reliable source, and everything else is either a primary source or about the series as a whole (like these: [57] [58] [59] ). Is there even a single reliable secondary source about the pilot specifically? I also question the RS-status of Wherever I Look and Flayrah , though mostly I just don't find them enough. The same The Geeky Waffle , Flayra , Animation Magazine , and Comic Book Resources articles are used for all of these articles. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) No, the Screen Rant article was written when only the pilot was out, noting that it was only "the immediate success [of Hazbin Hotel that] allowed Medrano to commission an 11-minute spinoff pilot titled Helluva Boss ", before noting that while "more episodes of Helluva Boss will likely come to YouTube as a web series, Hazbin Hotel has been picked up for a proper series order." The Flayrah article individually reviews each episode of the first season of Helluva Boss in order on a single article, while the CBR article reviews the opening scene of " Loo Loo Land ", while also briefly comparing it to the previous episode, so it would only be used on the pages for " Murder Family " and "Loo Loo Land". The MovieWeb article also referred to this scene, as well as the casting of Jonathan Freeman for "The Circus", hence why it was used on both those pages. And the Animation Magazine reference is also about the initial eight-episode order that followed the success of the pilot, those eight episodes including "Murder Family" and "Loo Loo Land" also, hence its inclusion to reference that the episode had been ordered. Some references are used on different pages, but not all of them. 113.30.191.65 ( talk ) 14:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Added referencing to the pilot to ensure it all passes WP:GNG . The award-nominated episodes look more detailed than most Rick and Morty episode pages. 1-1-2-2-SixtySix ( talk ) 14:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppeteer , see investigation ) [ reply ] A lot of them are WP:SPSs . In general, there lacks reliable sources talking extensively enough on any individual episode. SWinxy ( talk ) 02:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , or split to List of Helluva Boss episodes if the vote goes the other way. Looks to be just-enough sourcing to keep, personally. MangoloITCrowd ( talk ) 12:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of

merge

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives: Danners430 ( talk ) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Danners430 , were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources? Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article . WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 ( talk ) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability. Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014). British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points . Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7110-3800-4 . OCLC 897871236 . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST . These statistics are not given any context or meaning. Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives ) and eastern region departmental locomotives. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Switching to Merge with British Rail departmental locomotives in the interest of developing a consensus. I'd rather we have one of these list articles than three, that's for sure. There is no reason I can see to have separate list articles when one will do. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – there is a whole chapter devoted to this subject in volume 10A of Locomotives of the LNER . I have added this source as a reference to the article, along with one for each main section. I don't mind expanding it to one citation for each loco, but it a fair amount of work, and it would be a waste of my time is the article is deleted... The source also states the location the locos were used at. This is also part of a series of three articles – the second covers the Southern Region and the third every other region. — Iain Bell ( talk ) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do we need a series? These are just lists, and British Rail departmental locomotives could easily hold the entire contents of this article if people think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. Splitting them up seems arbitrary and not particularly helpful. We don't need three articles where one would do. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - First and foremost, I concur with Eastmain that sources exist to demonstrate notability, and two of these sources have been integrated into the article as of time of nomination. By definition, GNG is satisfied. Being said, looking at WP:NVEHICLE , this subject falls somewhere between the "type" and "subtype" categories in my view, and leans towards the "subtype" classification, falling under the "type" of British Rail departmental locomotives. Beyond functioning as a quasi-"list of" article, prose in this article focus predominantly on the history and numbering structure, which would substantively improve British Rail departmental locomotives . Ergo, I ! vote that the article be merged and redirected to a subsection of that article. Ultimately, I will also cite ease of navigation as a factor to consider here. The linking between these articles, especially without the 'British railway locomotives and miscellany, 1948 to present' navbox on some mobile platforms, makes information unnecessarily segmented across articles. Condensing and combining content here seems the best course of action. Bgv. ( talk ) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Are the two sources enough to establish notability? Are there more sources we are missing? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect: Although this information is sourced now, I don't think there is much point treating the Eastern region in a separate article (same for SR departmental locomotives , as far as I'm concerned.) — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, and I have just proposed a merge of SR departmental locomotives into the main article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, no consensus here yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into British Rail departmental locomotives . A good compromise for this AfD. gidonb ( talk ) 02:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Humanix Books: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Conservatism , Health and fitness , Politics , Companies , Education , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Newsmax , where it does not currently appear to be mentioned... but it probably should be. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Seafair (Richmond): As always, city neighbourhoods are not automatically entitled to have standalone articles as separate topics from the city just because they exist: it has to be possible to write something substantial about the neighbourhood, referenced to a significant volume of coverage in reliable sources. But this is literally just "it exists, the end", referenced entirely to content self-published by the city government and a shopping mall (i.e. not independent third-party sources), which simply isn't good enough. At this level of depth, it only warrants a mention in the city's article rather than qualifying to have its own. Bearcat ( talk ) 22:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Bearcat ( talk ) 22:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Richmond, British Columbia as WP:ATD-M — siro χ o 04:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Kompressor (musician): DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 02:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with content from Married to the Sea#Drew in current redirect article Drew (webcomic artist) , which itself might need to be renamed. I think there's enough between all his activities for Drew himself to be notable. I've found a couple more sources discussing him: "Drew Fairweather, the Funniest Man Who Does Nothing For a Living" Molempire and "Drew 'Multifaceted' Fairweather" Rise Comedy . — Torchiest talk edits 05:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - as per above comment, or delete. Was unable to find significant coverage, especially for an obscure parody artist of an already obscure genre. In addition to the sources on this page I was only able to find a last.fm profile which is just a repost of this article and an interview that was clearly just a joke. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 20:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Mister Maker Around the World: I am also nominating the previous spin-off, Mister Maker Comes to Town . The article has much more content, and 2 citations. The first citation is just an official Mister Maker flash game irrelevant to the lead where it is cited (and doesnt seem to be about this specific spin-off at all), and the other citation is likely much more relevant but hidden behind a paywall. Mister Maker Comes to Town ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) There doesn't seem to be any good sources for either article, I don't beleive either article is notable. Most of the content from both these articles, especially Mister Maker Around the World , can be added to Mister_Maker#Spin-Offs , and don't require their own articles. Theooolone ─ ( Talk - Contribs ) 05:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Mister Maker as per nom. Matt's talk 10:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

1925 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team: Let'srun ( talk ) 21:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , and California . Let'srun ( talk ) 21:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Humboldt State Lumberjacks football, 1924–1929 a la similar action for Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 , Temple Owls football, 1894–1899 , and Henry Kendall Orange and Black football, 1895–1899 . Jweiss11 ( talk ) 23:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with that, but the closer can't merge unless someone cares enough to create the target article before the AfD closes. Cbl62 ( talk ) 23:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From page creator: I created these pages to provide a complete record of every football season played by all of the Cal State schools. I have zero objection to merging the 1924-1929 seasons into one page if that's the consensus. ocfootballknut ( talk ) Delete per WP:NSEASONS . This wasn't even intercollegiate football, as all the games were played against high school teams. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note I have created Humboldt State Lumberjacks football, 1924–1929 and redirected 1927 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team , 1928 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team , and 1929 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team there. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 03:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC) a [ reply ] Merge , per Jweiss. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 03:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per @ Jweiss11 ' Cray04 ( talk ) 04:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of the busiest airports in Israel: There is one main airport in Israel, one that's mostly domestic (Eilat-Ramon), and one unscheduled (Haifa) with no data present. The comparison of these three airports is mostly useless, as it compares very different things. Artem.G ( talk ) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Artem.G ( talk ) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge These are part of a fixed busiest airports in X structure, so the question is whether to keep on that or to merge into List of airports in Israel , which I think makes sense. But we shouldn't lose the information. SportingFlyer T · C 19:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] there are just four numbers in the entire list, two of them duplicated (numbers for Ben Gurion airport are somehow identical in 2020 and 2017), and another one unsourced (Haifa 2017). There is not much to lose, but I agree that merge makes sense. Artem.G ( talk ) 20:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into List of airports in Israel leaving redir. There simply isn't enough for a stand-alone article. Zero talk 01:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into List of airports in Israel . After expanding, there are more data and sources now. The 2020 Eilat Ramon data point I still could not verify and seems large. Flagged as such. Others I have added and/or corrected. gidonb ( talk ) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] wikidata query gives the same number, don't know how reliable it is. Artem.G ( talk ) 08:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for looking this up, Artem.G ! It could be full circle. Still unsure about this one data point. gidonb ( talk ) 18:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into List of airports in Israel . Hogo-2020 ( talk ) 06:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge . User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 13:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTDB . This is just a collection of passenger data for a few random years. It seems like the idea is to gather statistics for as many years as possible, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place to store all those data. Mentioning the latest figures in List of airports in Israel is sufficient. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the busiest airports in Iran . Sunnya343 ( talk ) 17:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Airports in Israel . Data from here can be plced in that article if needed. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk ) 11:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete poorly sourced list about poorly defined, subjective topic. We need very specific criteria for "busiest" here. Merge or redirect would work, but either way, get rid of this article. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of airports in Israel . It's not notable for a separate article and not all of the information is sourced. Suonii180 ( talk ) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

The Dalek Generation: four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Literature , and England . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I see no reason why not Sansbarry ( talk ) 01:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How bout the fact that almost everything is unsourced? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures . So far I have seen only the one review by Starburst linked in the article, so I agree that this fails WP:NBOOK . No reason to loose the link to that one review, though, so this reference plus a brief plot summary should be merged to the parent topic as WP:Alternative to deletion . Daranios ( talk ) 11:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Daranios. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Democratic Progressive Azad Party: This regional political organization, founded just a year ago, has not made significant contributions to regional political developments. The provided sources primarily revolve around breaking news related to a leader resigning from their former party to establish a new one. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating the party's participation in any elections, and no sources affirm its status as a noteworthy political entity. – Owais Al Qarni ( talk ) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , India , and Jammu and Kashmir . – Owais Al Qarni ( talk ) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ghulam_Nabi_Azad#Democratic Azad Party : If this were a recognised political party it would meet one or more criteria and should likely be kept. It is instead one of 3000+ registered unrecognized political parties (RUPPs) and appears yet to achieve GNG in its own right. Azad is unquestionably notable, however, and the formation of this party belongs in his bio regardless of current or future status. ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 03:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further opinions about a possible Redirect vs. Deletion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ghulam Nabi Azad#Democratic Azad Party : Fails WP:NSUSTAINED , all the sources are about Azad leaving the INC to form his own party. Queen of Hearts 04:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ghulam Nabi Azad#Democratic Azad Party : if in the future sources show this merits a stand alone article it can become a properly wp:summarystyle fork. As it stands this is completely tied to Ghulam Nabi Azad and doesn't have stand alone notability. // Timothy :: talk 05:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Nhổn station: Sources naming it simply mention it as one terminus of the Nhon – Hanoi Station line and give no additional detail about this station. Even the Vietnamese Wikipedia article's sources have no significant coverage. This article should be redirected to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) . Toadspike [Talk] 14:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation , and Vietnam . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) needs a table of stations with their locations and a map, but otherwise redirect if there is no content. Reywas92 Talk 15:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf ( talk ) 18:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Embassy of the United States, Antananarivo: Biruitorul Talk 16:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages: Embassy of the United States, Kampala ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Embassy of the United States, Abuja ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Embassy of the United States, Juba ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Embassy of the United States, Harare ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . CptViraj ( talk ) 16:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CAPTAIN RAJU Not sure why this is deletion sorted for all these other countries? LibStar ( talk ) 22:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] my mistake I didn't see the other nominations. LibStar ( talk ) 22:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all all unnecessary content forks of bilateral relations. Created in a spree of new embassy articles with little actual third party coverage. LibStar ( talk ) 22:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge all to respective United States–X articles. I don't get why you would make an article about an embassy but then write little to nothing about the embassy and instead write about the history of their diplomacy. There's already an article for that, as well as for the list of ambassadors. Reywas92 Talk 14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all to their respective "Country–United States relations" article. While I must acknowledge that the rationale provided for the AfD is both insufficient and inappropriate, I am open to the idea of merging and redirecting it to the article specific to their country relations. There is more depth to these articles, and they typically follow a consistent format, much like a novel article would discuss aspects such as reception, characters, and critical reviews. I have also observed previous AfDs of a similar nature, which I deemed to be inappropriate. -- Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to their respective United States – (That Country) articles. There's no need to write about a country's embassy if there is little to no information about it. The country relations article is good enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈ ) 04:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Crisis States Research Centre: A possible ATD is merge/redirect to London School of Economics , but it could unbalance that article. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England . Owen× ☎ 18:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 21:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Eligible for soft deletion, though I'd like to see some discussion on the ATDs that were floated by nom before closing that way. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to James Putzel . Stuartyeates ( talk ) 04:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a brief properly sourced summary into James Putzel . This may very well develop into a full article one day, this will be a good place for it to be developed. Currently it fails GNG and NORG. // Timothy :: talk 07:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of accolades received by Folklore: I see no reason to have this list as a standalone list. Ippantekina ( talk ) 07:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Awards , and Popular culture . Ippantekina ( talk ) 07:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 16:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:SUBARTICLE : This covers different ground to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift , as it's accolades not awards , ie. List of accolades received by Folklore also includes critics end of year lists which aren't included in the former. This could be merged into Folklore (Taylor Swift album) , but this would tip that article over a WP:SIZERULE guideline. It's linked from that article instead of being included there. Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 12:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Revising to neutral having had a helpful discussion on this exact topic kindly pointed out to me. Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - to the parent awards article or the parent album article. If it's too big for either of those locations, then we really need to think about whether all of the awards are notable too - some trimming may be in order. Theres really not much (any?) precedent for an album having its own awards spin-off. It's overkill. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What on earth are these comments? "Need to think about whether all of the awards are notable"? Are you kidding? Why the hell are you applying what is meant for entire article topics to individual details. Individual details do not have to be notable. Look at the citations and list. They are ALL to reliable independent sources. There is not one accolade list with a [citation needed] tag. And "overkill" based on what? Users complained about it being overkill on the main article, which is why this split happened. For a separate article, this is perfect. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you cool it with the WP:BLUDGEONing a bit? I don't understand what you're so baffled about. This is no different than the routine debates on whether or not a song article should be spun out from an album article. Completely valid editorial decisions are being given here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No bludgeoning is going here. Users are giving different comments and I am giving different responses. That is just discourse. Can you cite me any "completely valid" argument for the merge votes? With due respect I am not seeing them. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a very short list. 14 awards. Single lines of content. And there's actually two different targets where it could be placed. If you can't tell how this fits into multiple aspects of WP:MERGEREASON I don't know how to help you. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you even reading the full page? That is obviously wrong. There are also the critical accolades, which are 82. 82 + 14 = 96, basic math. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The critics list is collapsible and is closed at first, so I do not blame you if you did not notice right away. But at the same time, you should know better. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, you are two numbers off the awards list. There are 16 awards, not 14 awards. Not a big difference, but I just want the participants' available info to be as accurate as possible. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 14 was in reference to what was visible. The 96 is exactly what I was talking about when I said we should evaluate if all of these are truly noteworthy to document. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of the publications listed are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles to link to. There you go, evaluation finished. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 16:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're both experienced editors - don't waste both of our time acting like it's that simple. Mainstream commercial releases could have 25-50 RS reviews. Are we compelled to add every single one to review table templates? And include everyone single one in prose? And if it's too crowded, do we spin them out to Critical reception of Taylor Swift's ''Folklore'' album articles? Before you decide to waste our time further, the correct answer is "No". Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Serge, I am being extremely nice here when I say the following: (1) Ippantekina nominating this for AFD in the first place was a waste of all of our times. I did not want to have this talk either, but here we are, so lecture Ippantekina on waste, not me. (2) This is not debatable. This is how Wikipedia works: Yes, we absolutely, 100%, without-a-question-or-doubt, do! Per WP:WEIGHT . And frankly, there is not enough of them. (3) If there was that much coverage to represent, there would be only one critical reception article of the album, not article s, so don't be ridiculous. (4) What on earth is it with experienced users like you, who at least know a lot of policy, promoting what would essentially being giving WP:UNDUE to a small fraction of sources? User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 17:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, and almost forget. Ratings of review are absolutely not the same as rankings of year-end lists of the best albums of the entire year. I should not have to explain why. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 17:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is absolutely nothing that compels us to list off every single "best of" award every publication rattles off for a given artist. That is an extremely flawed application of WEIGHT/UNDUE. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every time a publication ranks an album or song one of the best of the year, that counts as WP:SIGCOV. Not covering that sigcov means Wikipedia has failed at its job. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can not just discredit the reliability of the source by using specific rhetoric: "every publication rattles off for a given artist." This further proves my point WP:IDONTLIKEIT is driving your argumentation. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is awful policy interpretation. I think the only thing we're going to agree on is that experienced editors will continue to disagree with you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not interpretation, it is the truth. It is how this works. Leave or write on Simple English Wikipedia if you do not like it. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 21:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not only an interpretation, but an exceedingly rare interpretation. I've edited in music and video games for coming up on 15 years and I rarely see editors make such outlandish assertions in either content area. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep as a creator . None of the critical accolades are in the article Ippantekina mentioned, so this is not a CFORK, and frankly, that awards and nominations list has more than 600 entries and could be split. If all of these were too much to list in the main topic article, then newsflash, they should be in a separate article. There are more than an hundred of these awards and accolades for this album alone, cited to reliable sources. They are all from publications with editorial standards, and deserve to be represented for proper WP:WEIGHT . User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 01:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jonathan Deamer : @ HumanxAnthro : Not all critical lists are notable and worthy of inclusion. Please see this discussion at WP:ALBUM for more details. I see no need to have a Wikipedia list including each and every year-end album rankings like this one, and the industry awards are properly covered at List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift . Ippantekina ( talk ) 02:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Facepalm* Can you at least know what you are talking about before you type out what you are going to type out? : (1) Users, can you please, for the love of god, stop using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a rationale? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning we let all independent reliable sources do the writing for us. Who cares about your personal interests or some arbitrary metric of what you think is "needed"? I guarantee you if we followed that, the article count on this whole site would be zero. (2) The discussion was for lists of year-end rankings being too much in articles mainly about the album that are already long with other details , not whether every year-end ranking was worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia at all (including on a separate article), so it means nothing here. This is not opinion: we should make separate lists simply because it is too much for the article. (3) Individual details do not have to be notable. The topic has to be notable for an article to be written on it, so your claim that "not all critical lists are notable" means nothing. (4) All those reliable sources, which are many, run year-end rankings of the best albums. Any source from an industry source with editorial standards of verifiability and expertise IS "worthy" of inclusion, and anyone who says other does not know what Wikipedia is. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HumanxAnthro : You clearly haven't even read this discussion and it shows... Ippantekina ( talk ) 02:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excuse me? User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ippantekina I hadn't seen this discussion ; thanks for pointing out. That's a helpful consensus that it's difficult to disagree with, so changing my "keep" response above on this basis. Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 18:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift . Raymond3023 ( talk ) 05:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If kept it needs to be renamed, as the album is not the primary topic for Folklore and the current title makes little sense. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wut? You are not making sense. How does the title not make sense? User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't make sense as in when someone who isn't a Taylor swift fan looks at this they'll think they're talking about something like rewards received by "The Odyssey" or something. Additionally, you are fighting against the consensus of over 15 editors, who all agreed that it was unnecessary to list every single award/accolade that something won. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (1) You have not been on this site long enough then if you are confused. Look at this search and come back to me later. (2) I keep having to repeat myself because users here repeatedly say the wrong thing after debunking it. I am not "fighting" against consensus of the existence of a list like this. The consensus was that it was overbearing for the size of the main album article to list every accolade, not if those accolades meet some bullshit, not-based-in-policy methodology of "needed". (3) Even if that was the consensus, so what? They are objectively wrong. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 17:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you actively suggesting it's acceptable to ignore consensus you don't agree with? Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you honestly suggesting any of the arguments in that discourse were valid? "Waaahhhh, it is too much effort for me to read"? "Album ratings are as significant as year-end rankings"? "Publication year-end lists are the same as clickbait"? Serge, this is not "consensus I don't agree with". This is Wikipedia's principles being decimated in front our of eyes. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cite me the guidelines where content can be removed because a user was not literate enough to read it, and I will gladly change my ! vote. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No consensus is being ignored by making a separate list. They were talking about lists within album articles. Can you stop being wrong so I do not have to sound like a broken record? User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't say any of that...? Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (1) I don't understand what the link you provided me proves. Yeah, other "list of accolade" articles exist ( Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ), but I was talking about the song name being confusing. (2) We are saying that a merge is needed. Your only argument is that the article would be too long. The consensus is to limit the number of accolades mentioned in the article to solve this. (3) I don't think you have any right to call me an amateur when you think you can ignore consensus because you don't agree with it. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let me correct myself. I thought you were confused by the wording of "received by". I did not initially interpret you being worried the title was so vague it could refer to Greek literature. Sorry about that. However, this is still ridiculous because the name Folklore is italicized in the title, meaning it is referring to a specific full work titled Folklore . User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, can you not dishonestly represent what I am saying? My arguments are abso-fucking-lutely not only that I think the article would be too long. It is that all the coverage for the accolades are reliable and deserve representation, regardless if a person who did not finish middle school care about it. You are all throwing obvious WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and calling me unable to disagree civilly for calling them out, and it is absolutely disgusting. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift . Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the awards listed here seem be listed at Swift's accolades article. I'd say that we shouldn't have the exhaustive list of year-end rankings per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING . Anything noteworthy can be put on the main Folklore article. Pamzeis ( talk ) 13:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain further on what WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING has to do with this? I see a lot of users who cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE to remove reliably-sourced, cite content , but do not go past that. I could nominate every single article for deletion on this website under "Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" and it would make just as much sense. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To put it another way, you can not just say info should be removed because we are an not an indiscriminate collection of information and expect me to buy it right away. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point. Equally open to a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey, nominator. Bit of a though exercise. If I nominated the entire Taylor Swift article and others that currently existed for deletion under the rationale: "Who the hell cares about some stupid pop star? We are not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, especially not artists only teenagers are into", would you just civilly disagree with me, think I have a different edit philosophy and move on with your day, or would you accuse me of editing in bad faith and call me a moron? I would love to know. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 18:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you'd like to muse about hypothetical WP:POINT violations with the nominator, they have a talk page for that. This has nothing to do with this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does, because all of this is based on a discussion where that hypothetical is suitable. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 19:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the awards section to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift , leave out the Critics' rankings section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @ » ° ∆t ° 20:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge content back to Folklore (Taylor Swift album) , as it was before it was spun off. Rfl0216 ( talk ) 20:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge no rationale for keeping bar an absurd application of WP:WEIGHT . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral comment The article creator, HumanxAnthro, was indeffed for partly-related incivility against Sergecross73. Nate • ( chatter ) 02:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . If this means the bloated reception list needs to be trimmed, then so be it. WP:ASPECT means we have weight specific coverage by how important it is with respect to coverage as a whole. There's no way every single one of these accolades is noteworthy enough to mention, for the same reasons we don't have articles covering every government leader's canned condolence statement for every natural disaster. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift , it listing all awards and then which albums won them and in what years. If the Critics' rankings section of this article is notable, then just have it, or create an article with the critics' ratings for all of her albums int he same format as the list of awards article is. D r e a m Focus 16:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (selectively) to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift . In the process, trim non-notable awards from both this list and the existing list at the target article. Not everything needs to be listed, per the various policies highlighted by voters above including WP:CFORK , WP:INDISCRIMINATE , WP:WEIGHT , and WP:NOTEVERYTHING . Listing every single not-so-newsworthy award is yet another manifestation of obsessive Swifty-ism too and runs afoul of WP:FANCRUFT . I also recommend ongoing disciplinary review of the loudest "Keep" voter above. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 16:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] HumanxAnthro was given an indefinite block. D r e a m Focus 18:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I'm glad I didn't continue to add gas to the fire then. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Merge the relevant accolades into the parent list and album articles. I would favor deleting this afterwards instead of retaining a redirect, since the title is not adequately disambiguated and could be used to refer to accolades received by one of the other Folklores . -- N Ø 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift , per the above. There’s no point in creating multiple articles dedicated to awards earned by a single person. Wikipedia is not fan-based content; we create articles suited for a general audience. Also, most, if not all, of the article's listed awards and receptions is pasted from the original album article ( Folklore (Taylor Swift album) ). HarukaAmaranth 春 香 00:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War: I'm skeptical that this WP:SPINOFF article is necessary at all. It was started because there was some confusion over why Chinese Communist Revolution doesn't have the same name as the English translation of the Chinese Wikipedia's article's title. GoldWitness , the English and Chinese Wikipedias don't have to line up perfectly. Links between Chinese and English articles are meant to link the two articles with the most similar subject matter, not exact twins. This is a natural result of the fact that English and Chinese historians describe this period of history differently, and group the events differently. If it's decided this article is necessary, GoldWitness please see these instructions on how to do it properly: WP:CORRECTSPLIT SilverStar54 ( talk ) 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Politics , and China . SilverStar54 ( talk ) 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, thank you for letting me know the instructions on splitting an article! In my mind, the Chinese Communist Revolution differs so greatly from the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War that a spinoff is necessary. As the article describes, the Chinese Communist Revolution "is about political and social developments, and the origin and aftermath of the war" while the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War is the second stage of the Chinese Civil War. In other words, one is about political and social development, and the other is about the second stage of military conflict. They are not lining up slightly differently. Instead, they are two almost completely different subjects. GoldWitness ( talk ) 01:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're absolutely right that "Chinese Communist Revolution" and "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War" are not the same things. That's why I'm suggesting that this page become a redirect to Chinese Civil War#Resumed fighting (1946–1949) , not Chinese Communist Revolution . I also agree with you that the Chinese article on the "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War" probably should not be linked to the English article on the Chinese Communist Revolution (or the other languages' articles on that topic). Personally, I would support you creating a new Wikidata item for the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War and assigning the Chinese article to that item, rather than to the one for the Chinese Communist Revolution (although other editors might disagree). Here's a helpful guide on how to edit Wikidata: [40] , and some introductory stuff about interlanguage links . Basically, I think you're rushing to create a new article when this problem could be better solved in other ways. SilverStar54 ( talk ) 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for showing me the guide on Wikidata. I've never heard of Wikidata before! I will look at it some time. GoldWitness ( talk ) 23:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding rushing to create a new article, I saw some editors suggest that this article's content and sources were not enough for a spinoff. So, I wanted to show that this article has substantial content and sources by expanding it rather than spending time thinking about and writing an opposing opinion. Once this article is developed, I think the arguments supporting those comments suggesting a merge or deletion in this AfD debate will no longer be valid. Anyway, thank you very much for sharing your opinion! GoldWitness ( talk ) 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have created a new article in Wikidata called "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War" and linked several languages to it. Thanks! GoldWitness ( talk ) 22:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello SilverStar54! I have launched a discussion about those languages, which are titled "Chinese Communist Revolution" while actually referring to the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War in Wikidata. I think this may be controversial, and thus, a consensus is probably needed to change the links further. I hope you can participate in this discussion. Thanks! GoldWitness ( talk ) 23:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This request is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Communist Revolution . If you go back to see the what the article Chinese Communist Revolution was like in 2013 when the deletion request was made, you can find that all of its content was about the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War. So, there is no need to discuss again on whether a WP:SPINOFF article is necessary. GoldWitness ( talk ) 02:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify : the article seems like it's still in the process of being written, so incubating it in draftspace until it gets expanded sufficiently would probably be better than deletion. Drowssap SMM 14:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . If there were much, much better sources to prove coverage for the subject there would be a stronger case for keeping the article. But as it stands it would be better merged given a huge deficit in content. GuardianH ( talk ) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Do you think it is a better choice to give editors some time to edit this article? If, after some time, this article still has a huge deficit in content, we can post another AfD at that time. The fact that this AfD was launched fewer than 2 hours before the article was created gives no chance to add content and sources. GoldWitness ( talk ) 22:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Related to sources, I have added some books in the "Further reading" section of this article. These may be useful for citation. GoldWitness ( talk ) 22:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – if Chinese Civil War was 5000 words longer, I would support this being a separate article, but as mentioned above, it seems presently best to have one article with the adequate level of detail. Remsense 诉 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Communist Revolution , a consensus has been reached before. Haha33 2 ( talk ) 07:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What? That's a different article. Remsense 诉 09:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article Chinese Communist Revolution in 2013 and this article refer to the same event. So, they are actually the same. Haha33 2 ( talk ) 17:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They do not. Wars and revolutions are different historical events, even if they blur together. The French Revolution is not the same thing as the French Revolutionary Wars . American Revolutionary War and American Revolution are also separate articles. Russian Civil War , Russian Revolution , and so on. Remsense 诉 12:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think they are different, I will reuse the opinions in this discussion. "The article [Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War] is linked to from Chinese Civil War and the former is supposed to be a sub-article of the latter covering the second part of the civil war. The article Chinese Civil War contains only summary information of this subject which should be expanded upon. Poor quality content is not a reason for deletion of an article. Rather the article should be improved to meat the required standards." ---- Rincewind42 "I find it generally unfathomable that this topic would not deserve its own article. Just becase a topic can be thought of as a part of another topic doesn't mean it can't have its own article. There is plenty of overlap of this kind on wikipedia and it is a very good thing. There's plenty of bad content on wikipedia's china related articles, be bold by deleting clearly bogus content, not the articles. (not to suggest there aren't also plenty of bogus articles). WP:AQU, I've made this kind of mistake myself." ---- Metal lunchbox Haha33 2 ( talk ) 20:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do think it's reasonable for this to be its own article as a sub-period of Chinese Civil War , and to be summarized there. My concerns were merely that splitting the article was not the correct balance at this particular moment. Remsense 诉 02:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think that this and Chinese Communist Revolution are substantially the same subject, wouldn't you want to merge this article with that one? Why would you support keeping this article? SilverStar54 ( talk ) 23:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because this and 2013's version of Chinese Communist Revolution are substantially the same, and the deletion discussion of Chinese Communist Revolution took place in that year. I think the consensus reached in 2013 was that the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War was a part of the Chinese Civil War, and it deserved its own article, and I reused it in this deletion discussion. This article and the current version of Chinese Communist Revolution differ. In other words, Chinese Communist Revolution used to wrongfully refer to the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War, but it is corrected now. Haha33 2 ( talk ) 00:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay that makes more sense. I still think that Chinese Civil War isn't long enough to require a split, but I understand your position. SilverStar54 ( talk ) 08:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without keeping a redirect. Super Ψ Dro 15:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Chinese Civil War#Resumed fighting (1946–1949) . In English, this war is generally known as the Chinese Civil War, or at least part of the Chinese Civil War. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we all agree that this is a part of the Chinese Civil War. What we are discussing in this AfD is whether this topic deserves an article. I think being a part of the Chinese Civil War is not enough to prove that a split is not necessary. GoldWitness ( talk ) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

2024 dissolution of the National Assembly: Cmsth11126a02 ( talk ) 07:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France . Cmsth11126a02 ( talk ) 07:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The title "2024 dissolution of the National Assembly" does not even work. Maybe " 2024 dissolution of the French national assembly " or if this is the first, then " Dissolution of the French national assembly ". Redirecting this title to the target does not seem right, even though this is not a RM . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This definitely has enough coverage right now. I can also expect sustained coverage, as this is the first time this has happened in France since 1997. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 12:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Upon further thought, I think it's best if we merge this per others. Topic is definitely notable, but best put up with the 2024 Legislatives. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete/redirect The dissolution is just the call for the snap election, absolutely no reason whatsoever to have a separate article when it can be covered in the election's background. Sustained coverage will obviously be about the election, not the dissolution as an independent, unrelated topic. Do not make one-sentence pages like this either. Reywas92 Talk 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2024 French legislative election . The topic is notable (and may well be discussed for years as either a successful gamble or an unsuccessful one), but it is probably best discussed in the article on the election itself. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into 2024 French legislative election . Moondragon21 ( talk 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Speedy) Redirect to 2024 French legislative election per nom; this should be uncontroversial. This topic should be part of that article; and in fact that article already contains more information than this one-sentence stub. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 20:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2024 French legislative election as the proper page for this event. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 04:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral about the issue. I created the page because as a French citizen, I felt like it was a real subject that should be treated, but then I saw that WP:EN never created separated pages for the few previous dissolutions. So I decided to not intervene on the page anymore until the decision was made. However, note that there are plenty of sources and it could perfectly be a reliable and well sourced article, for example with a section 'background' (which would speak about previous dissolutions, which I think is not mentioned or talked about on 2024 French legislative election and even would be a little outside of the scope of that specific article, in fact. Another section could be about the results, and thus permitting the reader to go to the page of 2024 French legislative election . However, as I'm the writer of the article, I think it's better to stay neutral for me, but those are my insights into the issue. - AgisdeSparte ( talk ) 11:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . This is more of a procedural step toward the election as a whole. Borgenland ( talk ) 11:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . There are no separate pages for previous dissolutions of the French National Assembly (it is just referenced in passing on the 1997 and 1962 pages). Foreign dissolutions with their own pages typically have a constitutional crisis involved or an otherwise historically significant ramification (e.g., King–Byng affair , The Dismissal , or the 2023 Ecuadorian muerte cruzada ), which is absent from the topic at hand. < RetroCraft 314 /> 16:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as it is only the announcement of the legislative election, and deserves a section there rather than a standalone article. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs ) 19:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Preserve as I believe that the dissolution and the events related to it are notable and major enough (considering the state of affairs in France) to merit their own page. Also why I contributed to this page. Astralium1 ( talk ) 08:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Georgia–Kiribati relations: The interactions are minor, one meeting of the President and minister at the side of a UN meeting, one minor memorandum of understanding agreement. Lacks aspects that would make these relations notable like significant trade or migration, resident embassies and state visits. Fails GNG as most sources are primary. LibStar ( talk ) 02:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Georgia (country) . Kpg jhp jm 04:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions . LibStar ( talk ) 05:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete with partial merges. Some information can be comfortably merged into Foreign relations of Georgia and Foreign relations of Kiribati . It's likely that there are more non-English sources out there, so I am willing to be swayed, but as it stands now does not meet GNG on its own. — siro χ o 04:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge any useful content. Doesn't appear to have any major relationship. APK whisper in my ear 06:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the table cell in Foreign relations of Georgia that currently links to this article (as the substantive information here is Georgia-centric, which makes sense given the historical context). There is an interesting story to be told about Georgia's 2012 diplomatic push in Oceania after Nauru recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which led to diplomatic relations with a number of countries, but we don't quite seem to have the sources to support this level of coverage. (It's discussed a bit here but without much info on Kiribati.) I wonder if there might be Georgian-language sources that would have better detail on the topic, but for now there's probably not enough to be useful. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Star City (comics): We have here just a plot summary + listing of apperancees, i.e. pure WP:FANCRUFT . My BEFORE fails to show anything better than [31] , which seems to be a student paper (not a thesis - the best I can figure out it was just a course paper related to a blog - PopMeC Research Blog , since it is also part of the suggested citation in the pdf). I suggest redirecting either to Green Arrow or to the List of DC comics locations per WP:ATD-R . PS. Interested editors may want to know I also prodded an even worse IMHO article, Coast City . A redirect is always fine as I noted there, or we can have another AFD is someone thinks it merits it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have been slowly improving the page, and have added a variaty of sources. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ OlifanofmrTennant I assume you refer to this . Which of the sources you added go beyond plot summary/mentions of the fact that this entity appeared in media x ( WP:NOTPLOT ), and their treatment of this location meets WP:SIGCOV ? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/Merge to Arrowverse . It seems to go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE . I have no opposition to draftification to improve the article either, but it needs context and reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of DC Universe locations . I agree this does not pass GNG and the list is probably the best target as its a setting both in comics and the tv show. Rhino131 ( talk ) 14:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect due to insufficient coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG and should be deleted, but redirects are cheap. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of DC Universe locations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 19:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Destination Ontario: Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , and Canada . Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge It's not a corporation, it's a government marketing entity. Merge to the Ministry. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm aware it's a government marketing entitity, but I still don't think it meets the notability standards at WP:NCORP . I'm not sure what we could merge, exactly? Most of the article content is a mission statement and in-text external links to their wesbites. An alternative option is a redirect to Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (Ontario) or Destination Canada but the latter article has similar issues to this one. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are lots of references here and elsewhere. It really is a corporation, what the British would call a quango . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I saw those earlier in my WP:BEFORE . None of these are sources that would qualify for WP:NCORP . Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No sign of Notability beyond being a government marketing entity. The mention on Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (Ontario) is sufficient. Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 00:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tourism in Ontario#Destination Ontario where there is an unsourced paragraph. I boldly cleaned up this article of the unsourced and promo material, I believe what remains could be merged in the place of the unsource paragraph in the target article. If a consensus forms for another target, I will support it. // Timothy :: talk 14:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tourism in Ontario#Destination Ontario , the edits made work for me. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tourism in Ontario#Destination Ontario . The person who loves reading ( talk ) 01:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth: There is no information here that is not in that article, so I do not propose a merge. You should delete that article and create a redirect. Marcelus ( talk ) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Lithuania , Poland , and Ukraine . Marcelus ( talk ) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose The article is about a different topic from the treaty article and I think that an article about a possible commonwealth is worthwhile, considering that similar articles like Franco-British Union exist. Cukrakalnis ( talk ) 20:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain how is it different if it literally describe the same events? Marcelus ( talk ) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Treaty =/= Commonwealth itself. The Maastricht Treaty is not the same as the European Union . Cukrakalnis ( talk ) 12:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a state proposed in a treaty but nowhere else, and which was never actually created, has no importance beyond the treaty. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Jungleman's claim that this was proposed in a treaty but nowhere else is objectively false; it was a somewhat notable idea throughout the 1650s and was of later historical significance during the January Uprising . This is clearly more tha just a one off idea. — Knightof theswords 14:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Treaty of Hadiach : not enough to sustain a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed merge target per Renata3 , Eluchil404 and nom. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Treaty of Hadiach - seems duplicative content. Renata • 3 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge somehow. The article is about a proposed constitutional arrangement that was agreed by the treaty, but never actually happened. Accordingly this article should not exist. The proposed target article coverts not only the treaty itslef but the surrounding circumstances. Possibly some content of this article needs merging, which will leave a redirect. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Treaty of Hadiach . This proposed state never came to fruition and gained no notability independent of the treaty proposing it. There is not much to merge but no reason to lose any particular content that can be sourced. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. There seems to be a rough consensus that some of the content in this article should be Merged but several options on what the target article should be. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with merge proposition to Treaty of Hadiach Marcelus ( talk ) 09:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

SkyHigh Mount Dandenong: No significant coverage to meet GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 13:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Australia . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It appears to have closed [11] , unsure how that affects notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well it means future coverage is unlikely. LibStar ( talk ) 15:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Wouldn't be sorry to see it deleted, however I have added a contemporary reference from The Age (which mentions among other things that SkyHigh used to employ 90 people). Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 07:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Mount Dandenong (Victoria) , some of the content is about the summit area generally, I think this could all be covered together. Reywas92 Talk 13:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Greater Palestine: The topic as written is mostly WP:OR , as many of the key sentences are not supported by the citations given. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 09:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions . Onceinawhile ( talk ) 09:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Jordan–Palestine relations which has ample space to cover this topic. By this I mean that the topic can be covered in Jordan–Palestine relations , not that many of these cherry-picked bits of fluff (letter to a student conference, oh my) deserve to be in the encyclopedia at all. Zero talk 11:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support deletion. As mentioned by nominator, there are no significant coverage, not even one RS addressing the topic directly. The body is incoherent and filled with contradictory and unrelated pieces of information. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 13:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Palestinian irredentism or the Jordan Option as agreed in the talkpage. Palestinian claims are unambiguously established in discussions among PLO leaders and speeches. Just as we have the Greater Israel article, which is based on a book that is not known to be 100% reliable, the Palestinian demands in Jordan are real. Golda Meir implicitly stated that Jordan was part of Palestine. We also have the outcomes of the Palestinian National Council in March 1971, after the bloody events, which rejected the distinction between the West and East Banks ("Palestine" and Transjordan). If we rely on the argument of Makeandtoss, this would attribute all the concepts of irredentism around the world, such as Greater China , Greater Serbia , and Greater Azerbaijan . I understand there is a problem with the title. Sakiv ( talk ) 18:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge to Jordan–Palestine relations - there is no standalone subject here. The page name itself is sourced to a single, one-off quote that carries little weight alone, let alone justification for a standalone page; the rest is OR and has no place anywhere. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What should be covered in that "diplomatic relations" article? Is this ( https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/denilp10&div=21&id=&page=&t=1557137677 ), (Mitha, Farooq. "The Jordanian-Israeli relationship: the reality of" cooperation"." Middle East Policy 17.2 (2010): 105-127), ( https://www.palestine-studies.org/ar/node/35431 ) OR? What we are seeing now is a charade. I have offered a middle ground but there seems to be something to hide. Sakiv ( talk ) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Something to hide", eh? Do you think that impugning the motives of other editors helps your case? Zero talk 03:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you leave me alone? The intentions are not 100 percent correct. There are dozens of articles about unionist tendencies, and the facts prove that the Palestinian demands extend to Jordan: what proves this are the statements of the leaders of the Liberation Organization, research centers, books, and political parties. Can you respond with a convincing argument instead of making accusations? Sakiv ( talk ) 03:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you respond with just one secondary RS that says these demands and claims are related to Greater Palestine instead of you acting like a researcher and drawing conclusion from primary sources like statements? Makeandtoss ( talk ) 09:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Mish mash of Israeli propaganda probably intended as a response to Greater Israel . No serious basis for an article. Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Jordan–Palestine relations because there is more space to cover the topic. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Selfstudier and if not, then Merge per Zero. Nishidani ( talk ) 21:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . gidonb ( talk ) 01:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . gidonb ( talk ) 02:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . gidonb ( talk ) 06:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't understand the merge/redirect to Jordan–Palestine relations . Why not to Palestinian nationalism as the most prominent usage, or possibly a disambig with some selective merging to those and Binational Solution and Greater Israel [13] ? Ok, after looking more at the content and talk page i think i see why that suggestion, but really i think a disambig is probably more useful for the reader at this title. fiveby ( zero ) 01:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Lucifer Rising (book): I was able to find one review from Melody Maker on ProQuest (which I could not actually access, but I'm going to accept it's sigcov), this however is not enough for NBOOK, which needs two. Merge/redirect to author Gavin Baddeley if there aren't more reviews? There are a few sources that are interviews with Baddeley that were printed in many newspapers, and while that would be useful for expanding the article if it passed NBOOK, does not count for notability since they don't provide independent commentary on the book itself. It's halfway there, but I haven't been able to find another review. FWIW I did remove the sources from the page, but not a single one actually mentioned the book , just about the topics the book covered. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge relevant content to author page without coverage in two independent sources. Astaire ( talk ) 04:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . Fulmard ( talk ) 06:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to Gavin Baddeley per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . This entry from Amazon.com notes: Review Fascinating and often shocking but worth the entrance fee for the inclusion of the final interview with murdered metal legend Euronymous alone. -- Melody Maker , 2nd Feb, 2000. "The result of six years of intensive research, Lucifer Rising is lavishly illustrated with rare and unusual images, most of which are previously unseen... Baddeley has written a definitive study of a timeless subject allowing his interviewees to speak for themselves while ignoring the well-trodden pathways followed by other less-discerning writers. As a study of the potent blend of the occult and the cult of rock, it s unparalleled. Highly recommended. -- Record Collector , January, 2000. "Forgive us, Lord, for this is an entertaining, witty read." -- Maxim , March, 2000. There is a copy of the 51-word Melody Maker review here : Subtitled "Sin, Devil Worship And Rock'n'roll", this starts as a history of early Satanism, through medieval black masses, to thrash, death and black metal. And, of course, Marilyn Manson. Fascinating and often shocking - but worth the entrance fee for the inclusion of the final interview with murdered metal legend Euronymous alone. The Melody Maker review is too short to be significant coverage. It is possible this book meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria from the Record Collector and Maxim sources, but I do not have access to them. This article in the Evening Standard discusses the book but is largely an interview with the author. I am fine with a redirect without prejudice against restoring the article if significant coverage is verified or found. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There are a few books and films with this name, so hard to find reviews about this particular book. I couldn't find anything we can use and the sources given now aren't enough. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: There is also a Lucifer Rising (novel) . I recommend preserving the article's history as I wrote above. To address Oaktree b's comment about there being a few books with this name, we could do this: Move Lucifer Rising (book) to Lucifer Rising (Gavin Baddeley book) . Redirect Lucifer Rising (Gavin Baddeley book) to Gavin Baddeley so that the history is preserved under the redirect. Redirect Lucifer Rising (book) to the disambiguation page Lucifer Rising , which can mention both Lucifer Rising (novel) and the Gavin Baddeley book. Cunard ( talk ) 09:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cunard The book’s subtitle is “Sin, Devil Worship and Rock'n'Roll” so maybe it could be moved to the title with the subtitle? I forget the preferred style. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 09:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The relevant guideline for naming book articles is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Standard disambiguation . If we needed to disambiguate Lucifer Rising (book) , I think Lucifer Rising (Baddeley book) would be the correct name. But since we are moving the history to be under a redirect, having the title include the book's subtitle would be fine too. Cunard ( talk ) 08:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 08:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cunard , this is too complicated for an AFD closure. Please focus on what should happen with this specific article and you can work out the other page moves and disambiguation stuff later. L iz Read! Talk! 22:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of College Basketball on ABC personalities: Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS , 506sports is a forum and the ESPN now redirects to the main page, neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television , and Basketball . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Merge to College Basketball on ABC : Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN since as the nom notes as the individuals listed here are not covered as a group in secondary sources. A WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with any sources to improve the article. Edit: Changing my vote to merge as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 22:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources are being added to this particular article at this very moment to further strengthen its notability. This is a work in progress of course, but at the very least, take into consideration, merging the this article with the main College Basketball on ABC article as a secondary option instead of out and out junking it. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to College Basketball on ABC#Personalities as an WP:ATD . This article is WP:LISTCRUFT with mainly WP:ROUTINE sourcing or WP:BLOG posts, fit for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since this particular AFD was put into place, over 20 sources have been added. Of course, there could and should be more, but naturally, 20 is a huge leap and jump from the five that was initially there. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 09:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the addition of some reliable sourcing though I still feel as a list, it is not covered under WP:LISTN . Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Concur. I'd advise BornonJune8 of WP:REFBOMBING . Let'srun ( talk ) 23:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . A few things here: I want to quickly address some of the arguments presented by the nominator. WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a policy that relates to current and upcoming events/programming, so I wouldn't really consider this to be applicable here as it is a combination of past and present television personalities. From a spot check of individuals on the list, standalone articles about the subjects included on this list are notable and meet WP:NBIO . Of course, this does not inherently make the list itself notable, especially one that is standalone. Lists (not necessarily standalone) of this type have held water before (quick examples would include NBC evening news anchors and ABC evening news anchors ) with the same rationale that we tend retain lists of notable persons that have a notable trait in common. This goes beyond being simply an indiscriminate database , but is a significant compilation of an important aspect of the underlying subject, in this case, the television program College Basketball on ABC . As a result, deletion altogether would be a disservice the extent of knowledge one can gain regarding the television program. Regardless of the numerous sources added since time of nomination, I concur with the nominator that this article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NLIST for a standalone list. To retain the inline citations, per WP:AOAL , combined with the above, merging this list as suggested by Conyo14 ( talk · contribs ) seems be the best course of action. Bgv. ( talk ) 02:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep, Delete or Merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Changed my vote to merge per the previous comment. Let'srun ( talk ) 19:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

German interventions in the Mexican Revolution: There seems to be insufficient treatment of German interference in the Mexican Revolution as a unified concept, only each incident. 📴 Remsense 诉 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Germany , and Mexico . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Germany–Mexico relations as ATD. Mccapra ( talk ) 13:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : In agreement with Mccapra , sourced information should be merged into Germany–Mexico relations . XxTechnicianxX ( talk ) 16:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Statue of Roberto Clemente (Louisville, Kentucky): And I don't know how relevant this is but the location is also not significant to the baseball player who is depicted. Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 10:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , Baseball , and Kentucky . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merge and redirect (my comment below) , a prominent artwork in the Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory museum's statue gallery, this statue is only one of two of Clemente on Wikipedia. I'm not understanding why it should be deleted, although it's a stub that could be expanded with text and a photograph the statue depicts one of America's most famous and honored baseball players and humanitarians. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete unless some actual content can be scraped together in which case it might just merit a merge, either to the man or the museum. TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect . This subject is reasonably notable per sources provided in the article and its talk page, but the question here really is whether there will ever be enough content to ever stretch this beyond a tiny stub. Coverage of this subject in Legacy of Roberto Clemente or Roberto Clemente should suffice. Stefen Tower s among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect I found several local sources covering the unveiling of the statue at the museum, but they all basically say the same thing about a routine ceremony for a routine statue (this museum has seven of them in its gallery) about an extraordinary man. Without further WP:LASTING coverage, I don't think we need an article so say that so-and-so attended this event when Legacy of Roberto Clemente and Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory can cover the museum's exhibits and collection and his various forms of recognition. There are many other local news pieces about the museum's other exhibits, awards, artifacts, and events; this being a statue doesn't mean it can't still be covered in the main articles. The fame of the subject and the number of statues there are of him is not relevant to whether this particular one needs a stand-alone article. ( Reywas92 ) ( talk ) @ Reywas92 , if it has to be merged, would prefer a merge and redirect to Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory . Clemente has many, many statues of him in hundreds of locations and I don't think - I'm sure you would agree - every statue of Clemente merits a mention in the main articles. There are a few mentioned in the article which are relevant to Clemente's legacy or if he has a personal to the place. The obvious one, of course, is Pittsburgh. There are hundreds of statues of Roberto Clemente? Where? There is this one in the museum of the Louisville Slugger bat manufacturer and there is one in Pittsburgh. Having articles about these two prominent statues are not overwhelming Wikipedia servers and should be kept. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a WP:EVERYTHING argument "Wikipedia has space for it", not based on policy. I think Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory would be the better merge/redirect target, though Legacy of Roberto Clemente should also mention it. I don't think the statue is even that "prominent", it's just one of seven similar ones inside the museum, with no coverage beyond the museum's unveiling event. Not that any public art is automatically notable, but larger ones outdoors are at least sometimes included in various guides as visible local landmarks or don't always have obvious redirect targets like parts of a museum's exhibits. Reywas92 Talk 21:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To answer Randy's question: according to the Society of American Baseball Research , Clemente has more statues and memorials than anyone in sports other than Pele , the great football player. There are several in Puerto Rico and numerous on mainland United States. Here is the link if you're interested. But I would say the statue outside the PNC Park, the stadium of the only MLB team he played for, in the American city with which he is most associated with, is a far more prominent than one of seven statues in a museum located in a city where he - as far as I can tell - never set foot in. It is not uncommon for museums to have a statue series. The Baseball Hall of Fame have quite a few statues in its building as well, including one of Clemente (which itself is part of one statue, alongside Jackie Robinson and Lou Gehrig). And to clarify to @ Reywas92 : the statue's mention can be added manually of course and I will do so. What I meant was that the article redirect itself should be to the Museum's page. Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 20:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the good research. Since there are only eight statues I don't understand why articles about them should be deleted (a merge is a delete's twin). There are multiple articles on Wikipedia about statues of the same individual, some of America's founders among them. People have put up eight statues of Roberto Clemente because he deserves much honor and respect. Maybe if there were hundreds of statues, an article on each one might be an overload. But since there are only eight, and other individuals have many more than that, the only reason I can see merging is if an article is written about the bat museum's notable statue gallery (and not just about the museum in general). Keeping this stand-alone page also maintains two major Wikipedia collections: Baseball, and statues (a major part of Wikipedia's visual art collection). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've given the statue collection its own section; these aren't a single exhibit or gallery. Expansion is welcome there but a separate article just for that is unnecessary. But this can cover the baseball and art "collections", without the need for individual standalone pages for individual items. I've also expanded Legacy of Roberto Clemente to describe this honor and respect. Reywas92 Talk 14:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for doing so, @ Reywas92 . Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Randy, I have nothing against having another article on a statue by Clemente. I just don't think this particular one is notable enough to have a stand alone article. Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, thanks, have changed my comment to 'Merge', per this discussion and Reywas92 's good work on the museum page. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 22:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Dan Duquette Sports Academy: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT . – Aidan721 ( talk ) 23:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions . – Aidan721 ( talk ) 23:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete . Merge relevant info to the Dan Duquette page and then delete the article. No need for a redirect but his page should probably mention the sports academy he founded. Spanneraol ( talk ) 23:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete . Per User:Spanneraol . Also, the article has been unreferenced for 12 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenard ( talk • contribs ) 01:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Child's slave: This is an issue I see to one degree or another with a lot of China-related articles, where a unique phrase is used to birth a new sociological concept not necessarily related to the wider world—of course, with the root of the issue being there aren't a lot of reliable sources that actually link such concepts in China to those elsewhere. So it's equally a 'greater world' issue as much as it is a wiki issue. Regardless, there aren't really any results or sources that would lend this concept reification or notability since that time that I could find in either English or Chinese, the ones that are there are exceedingly paltry and do not constitute notability in itself imo. This isn't proof in itself, but the corresponding zhwiki article is three uncited sentences. Remsense 留 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . Remsense 留 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment You raise some interesting points, but on the other hand the phrase 孩奴 and similar terms like 房奴 (housing slave) continue to be discussed as a matter of linguistics. For example this [1] uses it as an example of internet slang. I know that's a thesis, but it's not paywalled so it's handy. In this article [2] mentions are quite brief, but current, and it says most people recognize the term. Does this article have merit as a linguistic phenomenon even if it's not the hottest slang ATM? Oblivy ( talk ) 01:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oblivy , the use–mention distinction plays a role once again—is the term in itself notable, or does any article for it have to awkwardly describe both the term and the phenomenon, since the former may not be notable, as much slang isn't, and the latter may not justify its own article as a manifestation of a greater sociological phenomenon? I hadn't found that article, thank you for linking it—I would really appreciate additional input from people that may have a local feel for whether these "things" are really "things" distinct from western analogues. This is definitely the realm of my personal opinion, but there are a lot of articles for "Chinese terms" that could use this kind of scrutiny, and reading them often feels icky, like they're reports from Victorian expeditions to far-off lands. Remsense 留 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The relevant excerpt from WP:NOTDICT says: In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia. World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda and Truthiness illustrate this. Remsense 留 02:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another nomination with a lack of a valid rationale . So what if the topic is a "flash-in-the-pan"? Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary , and the concept does not have to have sources about it in every single part of the world for it to be notable. I also found this entire piece from Beijing Review on the concept and this , both published in 2010, indicating there was significant coverage out of the 2013-14 period. Admittedly, most of the sources that appeared in my search was about American slavery and not this concept, so there is not a whole lot about the topic. But there seems to be enough to make a small article out of it, and not being internationally known or currently covered is no excuse to not have an article on it. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 20:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am aware notability is not temporary, my point being that the 'flash' as it were did not generate enough coverage of the concept itself to constitute notability, and moreover that some false notion of notability may be generated simply by the term being in Chinese, and perhaps the material should be incorporated into a general article for the concept. Remsense 留 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe the nom is referring to WP:SUSTAINED , which is a valid argument in a general sense. (I don't know enough about the subject to know if it's rightfully applied though.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meanwhile, I am voting Merge per BlackcurrantTea's reasoning. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- I am firmly for deletion if the current cites the only WP:RS available. Without scholarly secondary analysis of the phrase, this should be deleted. As written, the article fails WP:GNG for WP:SUSTAINED and WP:DEPTH as well as WP:SIGCOV with a possible detour into WP:NOTNEO . I strongly disagree with HumanxAnthro 's characterisation of WP:NTEMP in this instance. The question is whether this flash-in-the-pan ever had enough of a 'flash' to establish notability in the first place. Further, the lack of a valid rationale argument is simply false. Remsense discussed notability and sourcing, both of which are perfectly strong policy-based arguments. I also have a quibble with using general recognisability as a indicator of notability as Oblivy does above; flash-in-the-pan is familiar to nearly all English speakers, yet does not have a page in this encyclopaedia. However, I cannot ! vote to delete at this time because I am unable to do proper WP:BEFORE research. All sources are in languages that I do not read and the cites in the article are all from a very, very narrow timeframe. If no one can provide solid RS with strong analysis and a wider range of dates, I will change to deletion before this AfD closes. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wuuuuuuuuutttt? I just brought up two articles from mainstream sources on the topic from 2010. Also, I have absolutely no idea what "strength" you saw. Remsense's only-cited policy page was NOTDICT, which does not even apply because the article IS about the concept and not just the phrase. His only notability complaints, to put it simply, were that there were not sources about this concept in other parts of the world. I would love to know what guideline prohibits a topic if it only exists or is covered within a specific nation state, because a lot of articles about animes are pretty much in trouble if that exists. Also, while WP:ACADEMIC coverage of the topic would help tremendously, it is not the end of the world if that does not exist. All that needs to happen for WP:GNG to be satisfied is a few independent sources (newspapers or magazines) to WP:SIGCOV the topic, and with the Beijing Review article and citations currently in the article, it seems to have satisfied that. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep although not enthusiastically so. The deletion rationales are pretty all over the place right now. Sustained isn't an issue. Notneo seems to give way to sustained. Sigcov is addressed with Chinese sources. @ HumanxAnthro Good catch on the Beijing Review and China Daily Articles. That means we have coverage in 2010, later in 2013-14 in analysis of internet usage, and then in 2019 or so in the PKU article. That's pretty sustained. There were two academic studies in Chinese in the 2010-2011 range: 岳玉阁. “论‘孩奴’现象对幼儿生命成长的不良影响.” 教育与教学研究 25.10 (2011): 120–122 徐安琪. “‘孩奴’炒作现象的负效应和辨正.” Dang dai qing nian yan jiu = Contemporary youth research 8 (2010) And this 2023 article [3] gives it a passing footnote mention (bringing in the Beijing Review article) in the context of pressures on Chinese fertility. I "quibble" with whether I actually advocated for using recognisability as an indicator of notability, BUT I do wonder whether the almost total lack of discussion of this concept in English sources means that it's really a Chinese-only phenomenon. That all having been said, the China Daily article is 100% about this term, and there are multiple Chinese-language papers which use it as either a centerpiece or a significant example of online speech. I think that's enough. Although not required by WP:NEXISTS it would be nice if some of this work could make it into the article... Oblivy ( talk ) 02:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am increasingly ready to prefer merging or withdrawing entirely with the additional sources found during the discussion. I apologize if my initial arguments were presented confusingly, but my reasons for skepticism in articles like these are inherently multi-faceted, due to a number of contributing factors. Remsense 留 02:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Little emperor syndrome due to the similarity in concepts: The one-child policy, the child's being the centre of the family and attention, high parental expectations, and spoilt children. BlackcurrantTea ( talk ) 13:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BlackcurrantTea , precisely! Thank you for naming the article specifically, something I've neglected to do. Remsense 留 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Little emperor syndrome per BlackcurrantTea 's reasoning. It resolves my concerns in teh the comment I made above. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of Dune secondary characters: In the spirit of WP:SOFTDELETE , the OR issues can likely be solved by merging this to List of Dune characters . Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no objections to merging... but merging should never be an excuse to eliminate certain characters as "non notable" (the list is notable, the characters need not be). Jclemens ( talk ) 06:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, the relationship between the two lists is problematic, in that List of Dune characters really doesn't give any descriptions at all, and there is definitely overlap. I suspect that the list under discussion was constructed as a merger of formerly independent articles, and simply omits the "major" characters not merged. If there's to be a change, adding the rest of the characters into this list in a WP:SS fashion, while renaming the nominal "main" list into a List of Dune franchise appearances or something similar in that it does not serve the purpose most would expect from a Wikipedia characters article. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article seems to be primarily character bio / plot summary, with a bit of secondary analysis, and essentially no tertiary analysis. It's pretty in-depth and curated, and I don't know if we are able to transwiki it anywhere but it doesn't really belong here. If there is secondary coverage from which we can construct tertiary analysis, tagging or draftifying would be an option. At the very least let's redirect as an ATD because we don't need to delete history. I do wonder if the article as it stands would fit at Wikibooks, as it's a pretty well done version of what it is (but not an encyclopedia article) — siro χ o 07:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a common problem for many lists of characters, which are nothing but plot summaries. An issue overdue for Village Pump or a major RfC or such, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure how best to organize these, but the list articles seem useful to bring together the various individual characters that have a bit of coverage but don't need a stand-alone article. The main list contains little actual information about the characters, and the Dune universe strikes me as one of a relatively small number of fictional universes that could sustain more detailed sub-lists. I take the nominator's point about determining "secondary", but a merge into the main list would start to make it unwieldy. Having only read the first of the books, I don't know the universe well enough to propose an alternative. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into a reformatted List of Dune characters . Jclemens is correct that this list is a merge/consolidation of individual articles for notable characters that at the time weren't quite substantial enough to warrant standalone articles. I'd like to boldly reformat List of Dune characters to something like the featured List of The Mandalorian characters (and similar lists), and merge in the content from this list and List of Dune Bene Gesserit . Unwieldiness is a concern because over time I've already pared down the entries in both lists, but I really think it can work (I've considered doing it in the past). Plus with the advent of the Villeneuve films, there is also a lot more media coverage available on some of these characters than when the list was created. I'm ready to start working on this immediately. I will begin the reformat of the main list today (that should be done anyway), and will hold off on any major merges until I have some confirmation here that I won't be disrupting the AfD. Thanks. — TAnthony Talk 18:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Piotrus , are you willing to withdraw this nom to allow TAnthony's proposed work--without prejudice to immediately refiling a future request if that doesn't happen? Jclemens ( talk ) 18:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would conclusion of the AfD as merge not be the same? I'd be happy to close it as such (or see anyone else do so). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge based on discussion above. I understand the concern about starting the work before the AFD has concluded, but Wikipedia isn't a WP:BUREAUCRACY . I'd encourage an expansion of the main article regardless, and hopefully a consensus will emerge to support that. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 00:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

What Are We Going to Do with Uncle Arthur?: No reason to think that this topic has independent notability outside of Upstairs,_Downstairs_(1971_TV_series) JMWt ( talk ) 10:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . JMWt ( talk ) 10:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Upstairs Downstairs. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots → 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect as an alternative to deletion. BusterD ( talk ) 13:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

November 2008 Dera Ismail Khan bombing: No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 04:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 04:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge relevant content to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2008#October – December (considerations from our last 20 AfDs apply). PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2008#October – December based on recent AfD precident. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

KMLM-DT: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity , and Texas . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRPV-DT . Worth noting: this station was not always associated with GLC, but that was only its first two years on the air. (It was built by National Minority TV, which was the Trinity Broadcasting Network 's way of using an FCC ownership rule loophole. [1] ) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Paine, Judy (October 29, 1988). "New station on air" . The Odessa American . Odessa, Texas. p. 17A . Retrieved January 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com. Merge with God's Learning Channel : this is another remnant of the circa-2005 "notability standards" where we, at times, seemed to give any broadcast station at least a stub, even full-time relays of other services. Even before 2021 we were theoretically discouraging those, but the standards were still loose enough for a PROD to be declined in 2011. (I had to procedural contest a second PROD attempt that was made right before this AfD because of the 2011 one.) I don't think the limited pre-GLC history of this station would weigh down that article much. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Skal vi danse? (season 4): I have already carried over any useful information to the Skal vi danse? main article. There is no reason to maintain these standalone season articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTE: Also delete the following for same reasons as stated above. Any useful tables have been carried over to the Skal vi danse? main article. Skal vi danse? (season 5) Skal vi danse? (season 6) Skal vi danse? (season 7) Skal vi danse? (season 8) Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Norway . Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance , Music , and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since the necessary merge has already been done. (Thanks, Bgsu98 ). -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Shouldn't this include: Skal vi danse? (season 5) Skal vi danse? (season 6) Skal vi danse? (season 7) Skal vi danse? (season 8) D r e a m Focus 10:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m still working on that project and didn’t want to delete anything until I can carry the relevant tables over to the main article. I can try and do that today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Skal vi danse? as preferred WP:ATD . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge only properly sourced content to Skal vi danse? // Timothy :: talk 11:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Voiced palatal tap and flap: And it's a conference paper from 2022. In addition to lacking significant coverage , WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:NOTLEAD may apply here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voiced velar tap (2nd nomination) . Nardog ( talk ) 21:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . Nardog ( talk ) 21:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reprisal on the page is practically due to the confusion of the palatal and velar points of articulation, however Morris Halle , whom Akinbo cites, describes the coalescence of velar consonants to genuinely possible palatal consonants, just as the palatal velum cannot contract enough to produce a sound acoustically distinct from /g/ or /ɣ/, making the hard palate more conducive to the articulation of a tap, just as purely palatal consonants are more phonemically rare than their velar counterparts, just as many of these consonants are allophones of velar consonants. Furthermore, the page does not involve original research, as the source that genuinely supports the page is Palatalization/velar softening: What it is and what it tells us about the nature of language from the Latvian man , who this source cites, and the lacking significant coverage is because the source material is protected by copyright such as the page " voiceless labiodental nasal " had been deleted due to possible copyright infringement, I didn't take any chances. The Young Prussian ( talk ) 22:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On which page does that paper discuss Latvian or a tap/flap? Nardog ( talk ) 22:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Given cross-linguistic evidence that velar softening mostly results in palatalization (Halle 2005) and the charcoal stain on the participant’s velum and hard palate in the palatograms, we note however that the intervocalic velar in Dàgáárè could be a palatal tap, a sound which is also unattested but predicted to be possible." Did you happen to read the article? The Young Prussian ( talk ) 22:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is Akinbo et al., not Halle. Again, on which page does Halle say anything about a tap? Nardog ( talk ) 22:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Halle does not explicitly talk about the tap, Akinbo quotes him as mentioning the tap, which in turn is what suggests the existence of a palatal tap through a consonant mutation. Latvian=Halle The Young Prussian ( talk ) 22:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which runs directly counter to the statement you inserted here . Nardog ( talk ) 22:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was because I put the wrong reference, it was [1] from Akinbo and [3] from Ladefoged. The Young Prussian ( talk ) 22:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Significant coverage" in WP:GNG doesn't mean an article has to cover the subject significantly, it means the subject has to be covered significantly in reliable sources outside Wikipedia. Nardog ( talk ) 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The main issue is that you attest that the article was constructed through original research, which is not true, a low source does not mean original research, as the only source attests to the possibility of palatal tap, and Ladefoged attests to the impossibility of a velar tap, WP:NOTLEAD should not apply here, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL is not enough to delete a page or move it to a draft. The Young Prussian ( talk ) 22:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not disputing that a 2022 conference paper said that "the intervocalic velar in Dàgáárè could be a palatal tap, a sound which is ... unattested but predicted to be possible." All I'm saying is that that does not amount to significant coverage needed for the subject to be notable to have its own article, or to exceptional evidence needed to support the exceptional claim that a sound hitherto unattested occurs in a language. Nardog ( talk ) 22:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even from the little reference, there are more sources in favor of a palatal tap than a velar tap, as happened with the so-called " velar click " which was only found as an interjection for "yes" in some African languages much later , just like the locus that contains it on the IPA chart is grayed out to this day, and yet there are no sources that oppose the linguistic existence of a palatal tap, the super-exceptional " voiceless bilabially post-trilled dental stop " and " Trilled affricate " discovered yesterdecade and present in a small number of languages is also the same case and none of this contradicts the creation of a page for palatal tap. The Young Prussian ( talk ) 23:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, It turned out that I had confused coalescence (linguistics) with consonant mutation , because I hadn't remember the technical term. The Young Prussian ( talk ) 02:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tap and flap consonants : the single primary source is sufficient to assert verifiability, but not notability. We don't need to adjudicate whether the sound is velar or palatal. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tap and flap consonants per OwenX. This information should be mentioned somewhere but not notable for a page. The proposed target appears optimal. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of episodic appearances in CID: Recommend redirect . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 09:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists , and India . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 09:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Merge to page CID (Indian TV series)#Cast . RangersRus ( talk ) 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This list is not long enough for its own article and could be merged with the suggested redirect page. Sk1728 ( talk ) 13:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will be adding a long list of names but please don't delete the article 103.87.143.74 ( talk ) 05:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please give me 2 days of time so that I can add a long list of names so that this article is independent enough. Please don't delete this article. 103.87.143.74 ( talk ) 05:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read WP:NLIST and add enough applicable references that discuss the list (and not just the list entries). AfDs last for a week at minimum, so you have lots of time. - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 06:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Tilbury Town: There is not much that the sources say about this location. I cannot even find it mentioned in articles about the author's fiction. This doesn't have enough sources for a viable article. Jontesta ( talk ) 21:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Jontesta ( talk ) 21:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Edwin Arlington Robinson - I am finding some discussion about the town, but its largely in relation to the poet himself and how it was basically a slightly fictionalized version of his hometown. This seems like a WP:NOPAGE situation where it would be best discussed in the main article on the poet and his work rather than split out as a separate page. Rorshacma ( talk ) 23:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Edwin Arlington Robinson per Rorshacma. Does not rise to WP:SIGCOV , but there is a valid redirect target, per WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Mazagaon Railway Station: Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India . Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Sandhurst Road railway station . Mazagaon Railway Station was replaced by Sandhrust Road station so marks the beginning of the Sandhurst Road railway station history. Both source and target are short. 20:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidonb ( talk • contribs ) Keep or merge . Wikipedia absolutely should have coverage of one of the original key stations of a major city and I'd be astonished if there were not coverage in books (not all in English). Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge per above. Deletion benefits nobody. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sandhurst Road railway station , if the coordinates is accurate the station is around the corner of the current station, so it would be better suited there as the predecessor station. Jumpytoo Talk 02:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sandhurst Road railway station . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Although sources were added imho there's still no evidence of any notability, Makes more sense to merge and doing so means the content is preserved. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

2024 Smart Aviation crash: TyHaliburtn ( talk ) 22:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and Indonesia . Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment notability is not about the size of the airplane and number of people onboard; but it’s about coverage and lasting effects for events. 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 06:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : does not meet WP:EVENTCRIT , minimal coverage other than local news sources. No reason to expect WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 ( talk • contribs ) 07:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with Rosbif73, also doesn't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents , I know it's an essay, but is the only guidance that exists. The subject wouldn't meet GNG which in the absence of meeting any other guidance it would need to. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IMO, WP:AIRCRASH is only applicable to Aircraft, Airlines and Airport article, not for accident article itself. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 23:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Propose to merge into List of aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia , we already have List of x type article in place, which includes small accidents/incidents like this one. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 23:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect Agree with Ckfasdf to merge with List of aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia . Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 12:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

The Pit (G.I. Joe): Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Military . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to G.I. Joe Team , which from the page history, I see had been attempted prior to this AFD. The current article is completely made up of in-universe plot information, with the only sources being used being issues of comic books. And searches show that this is not a topic that could actually be expanded to anything beyond that. Outside of obviously unreliable sources, I'm only finding the most trivial mentions of The Pit that do nothing more than confirm that yes, it was the name of the Joe's headquarters in some of the continuities. It is in no way close to being notable enough for an independent article. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Cool toy, not notable outside of the context of G.I. Joe though. Leaning delete because this has already been redirected and reverted 3 times so I doubt a redirection would stick. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am the one who redirected all those G.I. Joe articles. Yes, I did get blocked for it, but it was because most of them have the same problem as The Pit. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:949F:C33D:7BD5:A7CC ( talk ) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if more sources are found, otherwise I am fine with a merge to G.I. Joe Team . BOZ ( talk ) 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of members of the Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame: Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that I'm not in favor of deletion at all. I think having all this info on one page is a better approach. Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:PM for merge requests. Conyo14 ( talk ) 14:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's very rarely used, this is generally an okay place to have these discussions. A lot more people see it. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Conyo14 , thank you for the info. I was not aware of WP:PM . Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 22:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Lists of people , Baseball , and Mexico . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. This can also be procedurally closed and a merge discussion opened per Conyo14. If this is done, please ping me so I can comment there. However, this is the venue currently open for me to make my ! vote. Frank Anchor 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Separate page is not necessary. And given the disfunction of WP:PM for merge requests, I understand using AfD to seek a merge. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 19:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 15:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

2023 Tirana camp raid: Per WP:EVENT , unlikely to receive WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DEPTH . Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police , Iran , and Albania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Per WP:EVENT . Only if reliable sources keep talking about this in the future should an article be created. A summary of the event is there . That summary could be expanded with some material from this article. This article's title should be a redirect to that summary's section. Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 18:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Camp Ashraf 3 . Long term coverage has not taken place to establish notability, but there is relevant information here. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is already the enough references, need to change the keyword for searching, try this one please, and so on... DRIS92 ( talk ) 12:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Camp Ashraf 3 per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Cameron's Crossing railway station: The article has two sources; one of which itself cites Wikipedia and is likely a WP:REFLOOP . The only other source is a line entry in a list of all railway stations in New Zealand by their opening and closing dates. Looking at maps of the line using MapsPast during the era which this source says the station was operational, there is no sign of a station between Kawiti and Ngapipito (the supposed location of Cameron's Crossing per the main Okaihau Branch article). A substantial online search has also turned up nothing (most results were along the lines of "Cameron's crossing of the..." rather than a place by that name), and a search by Daveosaurus of papers from the time using Papers Past turned up no results for the supposed area of the station (but did find earlier references to a station by that name in Southland, which was renamed as Makarewa Junction and is covered in the article of Makarewa ). The WP:PROD was delisted with a suggestion to consider alternatives such as a merge or redirect, but given the station doesn't have any solid evidence of its existence these don't seem like suitable options. Turnagra ( talk ) 20:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions . Turnagra ( talk ) 20:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Turnagra ( talk ) 20:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's odd. I did a search of Papers Past and found reference to Cameron's Crossing being located opposite Orauta Native School . Paora ( talk ) 21:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Definitely interesting. There is something there and visible on Retrolens https://files.interpret.co.nz/Retrolens/Imagery/SN209/Crown_209_551_57/High.jpg as at 1950 - it could be a 10' x 10' shed, or it could (with some imagination) be a tiny railway station, but it's not named or shown as a station (or even as any building at all) on NZMS 1 as at 1942 https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_001/jpg/NZMS001_N15_1942.jpg or as at 1965 https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_001/jpg/NZMS001_N15_1965.jpg . Daveosaurus ( talk ) 10:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Turnagra , Cameron's Crossing is still mentioned in Okaihau Branch (closed 28 January 1974). If that is wrong, we should correct it. Even if it is a former station, redirecting to Okaihau Branch is still a viable WP:ATD is it not? ~ Kvng ( talk ) 21:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wanted the AfD discussion to take place first, in case something came out that I missed and it turned out that it actually did exist and we'd need to edit the Okaihau Branch article again. I'm still not entirely convinced that a specific station by this name existed (though I'm less certain after Paora's find), which is why I didn't suggest a redirect instead. Turnagra ( talk ) 21:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll see what Bruce Hermann's 2007 book North Island branch lines has to say when the libraries reopen on 3 January. Paora ( talk ) 22:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't know Northland well enough to be sure enough to ! vote "delete", but I was not able to find any railway station under that name in Papers Past other than an ephemeral station somewhere near Makarewa Junction, Southland, in the 1870s. Daveosaurus ( talk ) 10:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : If there's not enough information to prove the station even existed, there's definitely not enough to pass GNG. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge / redirect to Okaihau Branch . There is sufficient evidence that there was a stop called Cameron's Crossing 7 km from the Otiria end of the line, from the railway notice in the Northern Advocate of 22 March 1941 , stating that trains on the line would being stopping at Cameron's Crossing, opposite Orauta School, on 24 March 1941. The Orauta School, which closed in 2005, is 7 km along the branch line from Otiria, which tallies with the information in the Okaihau Branch article. However, after reviewing the print sources available at Auckland Central Library about the Okaihau Branch, my conclusion was that, with the possible exceptions of the stations at Otiria, Kaikohe and Okaihau, none of the other stations could be regarded as meeting WP notability criteria, and other than the Northern Advocate advertisement and the references already in the article, I could find no other reference to Cameron's Crossing Station. Paora ( talk ) 10:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Paora - based on this new (old) information, I'm happy with it being kept or redirected depending on the particular notability requirements for train stations. I'm thinking that a redirect may still be the best option, but I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. Turnagra ( talk ) 18:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge to Okaihau Branch . Paora 's source checks out and I have added it to Okaihau Branch to support the mention of Cameron's Crossing there. I hope someone with more railway notability experience now chimes in to help us decide whether this merits a stand-alone article or a redirect. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but edit to correct the opening date and add location. The 1941 advert shows it opened on 24 March 1941, rather than on 1 May 1914. It also mentions it was opposite the native school, which is marked on maps past . The Retrolens photo shows it west of Rogers Road, which would place it at about -35.4163 173.935161. Yonge's Railway Atlas shows it 6.88km, rather than 7km. A Facebook post mentions railway houses at the ballast pit. The school jubilee booklet says trains stopped for the school from 1930 and that the school was moved in November 1941. The booklet also has a photo of the Kauri Timber Company line near Lake Kaiwai , which is also marked on the atlas. Johnragla ( talk ) 20:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge / redirect to Okaihau Branch . Nowhere near enough info for a standalone article. Nurg ( talk ) 07:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If this article is merged with the branch article, then for consistency, the same should be done for all the other station articles, which have even less information available than this one. Johnragla ( talk ) 10:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. Merge them all. Nurg ( talk ) 10:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

UAB School of Engineering: PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements -- the sourcing on the article is either primary or database entries. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 17:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, this Keep vote is from the article's creator. Second, the only secondary source that I see that could establish notability is the Jones article. Unfortunately, it appears to be a rephrasing of a UAB announcement , which is a primary source. It also isn't clear to me whether Jones is reliable in the first place. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] why are you always doubting my sources, it is already on clear that my sources are reliable. Are you trying to delete all my pages? It seems you're targeting my pages. This page is already a criteria for nobility. No need to delete. Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I want to make it clear that whether a source is secondary and whether it can be used to establish notability are two different questions. WP: GNG describes several criteria for whether a source can be used to establish notability. You are right that there are secondary sources in the article. However, those sources can't be used to establish notability. The Shipley article isn't about the school -- it is about an invention by people who happen to be affiliated with UAB Engineering. Since the coverage isn't direct, it can't establish notability. The issue with the Jones article remains unaddressed. The remainder are lists or directories that cannot be used to establish notability. I'm not targeting "your pages" (whatever that means, considering that no user really "owns" any page outside of their userspace). In any case, AfD is not the appropriate venue to address such a claim. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 20:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll add more secondary sources until you gave up! The article is about the school that created the invention. Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is about the school that created the invention. The article is titled "UAB engineering students create walker to aid Children’s of Alabama patients". It's about an invention -- it's not about the school. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Alabama . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - to the University's main article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES , WP:Redirects are cheap and WP:ATD . The article about the walker is from an unreliable website that relies on user contributions. The story about the new building is WP:ROUTINE and does not speak to notability at all. Further, I agree with the nominator that it appears to be written off a press release, making it also not independent. A good general rule of thumb is law schools and medical schools usually qualify for an independent article; the other subschools that make up a university don't, barring some serious coverage of some of their research in books, magazines or journals. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Redirecting is an option per WP:ATD , or should this be kept? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: "or should this be kept?" The Keep vote doesn't adequately address the rationale for nomination. I'm also comfortable with a redirect. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and Merge : Sources are pretty patchy and a lot of them are to the university (and its news), local fraternities, etc.. While is a secondary source for the invention, I don't see any reason why the content in this article can't be a section in the main university article: even if there were more non-university-affiliated non-self-published secondary sources to pull content from, probably it would still fit merged. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 18:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to University of Alabama at Birmingham#College and schools . The separate page adds extremely little information: the rankings are already present in the main page, and the list of departments provides no useful information to the reader ( WP:NOTDIRECTORY ). Broc ( talk ) 16:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to University of Alabama at Birmingham . There genuinely may possibly be enough to someday write a brief and complete article on the subject of UAB's engineering school, but WP:PAGEDECIDE reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context . This is one of those times; it would be better to structure the coverage within the article on the University, at least given the current state of sourcing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

John Kelly (NYPD Blue): Character that was in under 30 episode. Article is all plot. Cant find anything good. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police , Fictional elements , Television , and New York . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment LA Times still has content on Caruso's exit from this role. That was on the first page of a Google search, so I suspect there may be more. Jclemens ( talk ) 02:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The problem with that source, and many others in reliable sources I'm finding, is that they aren't about the fictional character as much as they are on the actor and the real-world consequences from his exit from the show. Great sources for David Caruso 's article, but not so great for an article on John Kelly. This article , from New York (magazine) and this one from the NYT were the best two I found so far that actually do talk about the character a bit in addition to the actor, though they still aren't super great in that regard. Rorshacma ( talk ) 05:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage of one is coverage of the other. We don't judge why RS'es cover fictional elements, just whether and how they do. Jclemens ( talk ) 03:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage of the actor, David Caruso, is not coverage of the fictional character, John Kelly. The article from the LA Times you linked is entirely about the real life actor, David Caruso, and his career. There is no actual information on any fictional elements in it. Rorshacma ( talk ) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of NYPD Blue characters - As I still have not found any better coverage of the character, and I don't believe the couple of articles I mentioned above are sufficient to support an independent article, I'm going to go ahead and formally recommend a Merge to the main character list at this point. As the character list currently has no information on the character, just a link to this article, a basic summary of the character should be merged over. Rorshacma ( talk ) 02:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge if you can properly source it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Simrad Yachting: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Norway . Owen× ☎ 14:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Navico as an ATD. Both short articles. Can be included in totality (something always drops) without creating a situation of undue. gidonb ( talk ) 02:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Nominated the related Lowrance Electronics . gidonb ( talk ) 13:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for Deletion, Merging or Keeping. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Navico , can't find anyhting to give it notability on it's own, merging with Navico makes sense to me to add there. Shaws username . talk . 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Latvian–Estonian Basketball League All-Final Four Team: This is basically a "stats only" article with no sources covering the topic of the article in depth. So, no indication of wp:notability under GNG or the SNG. Regarding the subject of the article, the prose contains merely a statement of it's existence and what it is and the n remainder is stats-only covering who won it. In trying to do my NPP job properly, I can find no evidence of wP:Notability under GNG or the SNG. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 00:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball , Estonia , and Latvia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per above. killer bee 09:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Latvian–Estonian Basketball League as NOPAGE. — siro χ o 09:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Latvian–Estonian Basketball League . Svartner ( talk ) 03:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Ferruccio Diena: Being in the Dizionario della grande Juventus (if reliable and if sigcov) isn't enough. Dougal18 ( talk ) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. There is no 1929–30 Juventus FC season so cannot redirect to the season, which would be my preferred option for players who made 1 appearance. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to his brother Armando Diena , if you goto both Italian wiki's you can take the cites and merge all into one English article which would be better. That my thoughts anyway. Govvy ( talk ) 16:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect – Per @ Govvy . Svartner ( talk ) 23:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect – per above. Idiosincrático ( talk ) 15:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Pine Hollow (Oregon County, Missouri): It's just a valley named after pine trees. Heyallkatehere ( talk ) 11:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If our article on the Eleven Point River were better it would let you know that this is a tributary of the Spring Creek branch of Eleven Point, and we'd be telling readers about the Ozark Land and Lumber Company, and in particular about the Cordz-Fisher Lumber and Mining Company, in relation to Eleven Point and Pine Hollow. Uncle G ( talk ) 15:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If any of the sources are easily accessible on online, leave the links here and I would be willing to do a little expansion of the other article. James.folsom ( talk ) 19:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I need to check that the sources join up. There are eleven Pine Hollow valleys in Missouri. This one is definitely the aforementioned tributary. I spent ages with the maps making sure. But further research after writing the above led me to doubt the connection from Cordz-Fischer to this Pine Hollow. The source that made the connection for me didn't mention the river system. Cordz-Fischer might be connected, per a later source that I found after looking further, to one of the Jacks Fork tributaries named Pine Hollow. Of which there are two. It doesn't help to check for a mention of Spring Creek. Missouri has 21 of those. Cleaning up the GNIS mess is a right pain in the arse, sometimes. Uncle G ( talk ) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Eleven Point River . There is no mention of the this place in the local papers, and 8 articles in the state papers, but those are passing mentions without even enough detail to determine if it is the same place. I still think that if the local newspapers don't mention it then the hunt stops there, I just don't trust google for this anymore. James.folsom ( talk ) 19:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This one is hard on the search engines anyway, for the aforegiven reasons. Uncle G ( talk ) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You may know better than me, but I will add that I set the Newspapers.com filter to Oregon county and no mentions popped, so I set it to all oregon and found a few, like you said other ones. James.folsom ( talk ) 22:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Badak gas field: I'm not even sure if they are geographic features or built structures. I lean toward the former. This one seems to be about the middle of the road in terms how many sources a gas field has. Google wise this has nothing but primary sources and they are all, wiki mirrors, or wiki type sites, trade journals and smattering of other things that just seem primary to me. Looking at books, there are mentions. Mostly trivial coverage. Just a tiny few (my opinion of course) might move the needle on notability. I don't see anything in the policy that says these don't have to meet WP:GNG. I don't think it does, but I need more than just my opinion to keep going. I'd like to have a discussion to settle this, so that I can go about the business of sorting through these and getting rid of the non notable ones. I've asked the prod removers multiple times to provide me with feed back as to why they are notable. The argument seems to be, "they are notable because they have google hits." I'm not casting a vote by submitting this, I will vote with everyone else in the discussion. James.folsom ( talk ) 21:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indonesia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - thanks for bringing this to a wider group for discussion, James. I hope to give a more thoughtful response in a few days when I'm not tied up. I may also put some broader comments about gas fields in general on this AfD's talk page if I get the time. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I had a long think on this. All the sources that might be used for this article are written by the petroleum industry. I just don't think those sources are independent. Note that I declined to vote when I brought this here. James.folsom ( talk ) 20:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect I couldn't find any reliable independant sources that mention it apart from one from Reuters , and that one is about the processing facility. With that in mind, delete the article or potentially redirect it to Badak LNG since that has information about who is using the field and what's happening to it. Shaws username ( talk ) 02:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge I think that A. B. has a point, it's not reasonable to expect the sources to be entirely devoid of links to the petrolium industry, and as long as they're reputable they can be used. I still don't think that there's enough to merit it's own article and given the heavy link with the Badak LNG plant redirecting and moving the information there makes sense to me. Shaws username . talk . 00:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -Read the ref that goes with the article. It cites a whole chapter in a history of major gas fields. The chapter is paywalled but establishes notability. The free abstract alone is long and sufficient to support an article. To me, this is open-and-shut. In addition, there are many journal articles that are paywalled but point to notability. I’d have cited them, too, but the abstracts weren’t especially useful and I couldn’t read the paywalled stuff. I’m not sure they count here but they do reinforce that this was a very big deal back in the day before business news was archived online. This field employed many thousands over time. It absorbed many hundreds of millions (in today’s dollars) in capital investment. It produced even more money in profits. This was one of the top producers, globally, in its day. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All those sources are primary sources, WP:GNG wants secondary sources, and it wants independent sources. I would like to see arguments around whether primary sources and secondary sources from the petroleum industry are independent of the subject of the gas field to be used to establish notability. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree; I assert these are secondary sources. Refereed journals and publication with editorial supervision meet WP:RS whether or not they're associated with the oil and gas industry or not. For a similar case, note that physicists at national laboratories publish journal articles about work done by those labs; we don't deprecate those. We use journal articles written by chemists and pharmacists funded by the drug industry if they're published in reputable journals. If others doubt with what I'm saying, I encourage them to do Google Scholar and Wikipedia library searches for themselves and see what they think. (See the AfD talk page for comments on doing these gas field searches). -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes peer reviewed journals meet WP:RS. And yes, as such can be use to write articles. What you say is try. But you are ignoring the fact that RS≠secondary source, these are apples and oranges. WP:primary defines those sources as primary. Establishing notability of a subject is a different standard. WP:GNG specifically says this needs sufficient secondary sources to establish notability and merit it's own article. However, there are some maybe secondary sources for this if you look at google books, but they are published by the petroleum community and they are few. My actual question is around whether those are secondary, and independent as well as reliable. That is what counts. Those primary sources can never do the job, they only can be used as sources of material for an otherwise notable subject. In general, regardless of the nits I'm picking at; Wikipedia is meant to be general interest for the general public. These petroleum stubs are only of interest to a very niche audience, and don't fit the mission of Wikipedia. Not to mention the fact, that the audience that would want to know anything about these would seek out upto date reliable information that is provided elsewhere. While, these are usually a decade out of date. Additionally, Wikipedia has too few editors willing to work on articles, and nobody is ever going to expand these, even if they could. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to the larger Badak LNG plant article The Badak gas field article qualifies for retention as I noted above but a better editorial decision is to merge and redirect to the larger, more notable Badak LNG plant article. That's the liquified natural gas plant built for the Badak gas.-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Badak gas field#General comments on gas field notability and deletions for more discussion of gas field notability. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per A.B. - Wow - I haven't seen an extended AFD discussion in the Indonesian scope like this for a very long time - the article was created by an editor who left a trail of very problematic articles throughout the world relative to mining and energy subjects, usually about a paragraph long, with assertions that in many cases did not stand the test of time - in the current discussion, I can see that the article has to be merged with the plant article - it makes sense. JarrahTree 12:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a properly sourced summary to Badak LNG plant article per above. // Timothy :: talk 18:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Specialized Mobile Radio: One offline hit on GScholar of dubious reliability. GBook is a bit better, but sems still limited to legal documents/manuals. Our article is mostly unreferenced - effectively two footnotes only to unlinked sources, only one of which seems to use this term and in passing. It is not a hoax (here is the deorted archived version of the EL for FCC definiton of the concept: [29] ) but due to problems with notability and referencing I think we should consider WP:ATD-R if not outright deletion, which frankly may be justified due to notability issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete insignificant and dubias, delete per nom. Freinland ( talk ) 07:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Trunked radio system : the subject certainly qualifies for a section in the merge target, but not enough notability to justify a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Zajączkowo-Wybudowanie: a bot operated by retired editor Kotniski . Name means literally "Zajączkowo-Construction". As is visible from satellite images , this is actually a small industrial estate, and is described as a part of Zajączkowo on the Polish regulation on place-names (see p. 2518 here ). I could not find a listing for this place on the Polish government statistical database , though this holds data for Zajączkowo going back to 1988. Importantly, businesses located at this site list their location simply as "Zajączkowo" (see here as an example, here for another), which is no surprise as "[placename]-construction" would be a weird way to describe your address anywhere in the world. As such this place fails WP:GEOLAND , since it is not a legally-recognised populated place, but instead just a part of another place with no specific status of its own. Even if it did pass WP:GEOLAND , no page is needed for it per WP:NOPAGE . This is likely another example of Polish communist-era infrastructure (e.g., state farms, forestry offices, mills etc.) being included as a territorial unit (probably some kind of no-longer-existent communist-era construction-related site), and then turned into a Wikipedia article by bots and bot-like editing. I'm agnostic about deletion or just redirecting to Zajączkowo - either is good. TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND , WP:NOPAGE , WP:GNG , WP:NCORP . FOARP ( talk ) 13:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 13:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Stok ? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I corrected the article, coordinates and sources in Polish official documents. Formally it is part of the village. "XXX-Wybudowanie" referred to small settlements emerging outside the village of XXX. Articles about places in Poland are available on pl.wikipedia and are verified with the database of the Statistical and Geographical Office. Every town with SIMC listed is an official town in Poland. If in doubt, I advise you to check the SIMC field in the Polish article. Stok ( talk ) 06:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for responding. "Every town with SIMC listed is an official town in Poland" - the issue is that SIMCs were also given to many things that manifestly aren't towns, villages, or even hamlets, but instead state farms, railway stations, mills, forestry offices etc. Just having a SIMC doesn't mean that something is or was a town. FOARP ( talk ) 08:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus ,@ Stok - Also, though my Polish is far from great (as you will know if you ever read anything I've written in Polish!) translating miejscowośc as "town" I think may be causing a some misunderstandings. In English, a "town" is an inhabited place that is larger in size/population than a village, but smaller than a city. Villages, hamlets, farms, etc. are not "towns". Whilst miejscowośc can be translated as "town" in some contexts, I think in the context of TERYT and the Polish regulation on place names, miejscowośc may be better translated as "locality", since it seems to include units that are much larger than "towns" (e.g., the city of Warsaw is included on TERYT under SIMC ID 0918123) and smaller than "towns" (e.g., the small locality of Warszawa, Bytów County is included on TERYT under SIMC ID 0746998). These are not towns, but they are locations, so "locality" seems a better fit here. Or am I wrong here? FOARP ( talk ) 09:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to Zajączkowo, Tczew County as I don't see stand-alone notability for parts of the villages. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge per Piotrus to Zajączkowo, Tczew County -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Piotrus to Zajączkowo, Tczew County . Good AtD. // Timothy :: talk 18:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of mayors of Crystal Lake, Illinois: Similar to the nomination here . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Lists of people , Lists , and Illinois . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Patapsco913 Delete - Does not meet NLIST MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 23:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into article on Crystal Lake in a collapsed list. Lists of mayors are useful and can be developed. If separate articles are developed on notable mayors, we can consider if a separate list should be broken out. As the list is collapsed, it does not take up much space. See example. Patapsco913 ( talk ) 18:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC) (Source: [1] ) [ reply ] Merge into article on Crystal Lake. A very interesting list, but lacking sourcing or any other information, it serves a better purpose as part of the parent article. — Maile ( talk ) 15:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mayors of Crystal Lake, Illinois Image Mayor Years Notes William Pinnow 1914 1917 W.A. Goodman 1917 1923 Benno Raue, Sr. 1923 1927 Fred Mathis 1927 1931 John A. Peterson 1931 1940 Joseph J. Jaster 1940 1941 George Krause 1941 1953 Hal Tripp 1953 1957 Leo Krumme 1957 1959 Louis J. Goosens 1959 1971 Anthony Wujcik 1971 1974 Arlene B. Fetzner 1974 1979 Carl Wehde 1979 1991 George Wells 1991 1995 Robert J. Wagner 1995 1999 Aaron T. Shepley 1999 2020 Longest-serving mayor of Crystal Lake, died in office [2] [3] Haig Haleblian 2020 Present Served in an acting capacity from 2020 to 2021. [4] References ^ Crystal Lake Mayors Crystal Lake Historical Society. Retrieved May 2, 2014 ^ McCoppin, Robert (May 4, 2020). "Crystal Lake Mayor Aaron Shepley, 56, dies. Longest-serving mayor in city history 'never stopped advocating for his constituents' " . Chicago Tribune . Retrieved May 7, 2020 . ^ Smith, Katie (May 5, 2020). "Remembering late Crystal Lake Mayor Aaron Shepley" . Northwest Herald . Retrieved May 7, 2020 . ^ "Haig Haleblian Poised to Win Crystal Lake Mayoral Race" . 7 April 2021. Comment Category:Lists of mayors of places in the United States I'm surprised how common this is. If they don't have their own articles or anything significant to say about them, should they be listed anywhere? D r e a m Focus 15:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would say only mayor lists that meet WP:LISTN should exist. This one does not. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Patapsco913 to Crystal Lake, Illinois . Standalone unneeded CFORK list fails LISTN and CLN/AOAL, Unsourced content (lede) should absolutely not be merged, but no objection to merging the sourced list. // Timothy :: talk 07:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

History of Kohima: No need to have a duplicate, nearly identical page for this. Fram ( talk ) 07:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Nagaland . Fram ( talk ) 07:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect as AtD Agree totally. No added value from original. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There is no cause for having AFD discussion here. Kohima#History section will become too massive if continued to add more information. Article was created to expand the history of Kohima and to give a better detailed understanding of its history. Article can be improved with more sources. The Anonymous Earthling ( talk ) 17:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- Having a main article on the history might be legitimate, if the "main" article had more detail than than Kohima#history . If the creator has an intention of expanding it soon, he should be given the chance. WP:DONOTBITE Peterkingiron ( talk ) 21:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Peterkingiron that there's nothing wrong with a spinoff article. Assuming that that is what's happening. If the process will take more that a few days though, the author should voluntarily move it to their sandbox and work on it there. Elinruby ( talk ) 23:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if above suggestions by Elinruby and Peterkingiron are followed within a reasonable amount of time and the author(s) identify when they will be done by, delete and move to sandbox if not. ben ǝʇᴉɯ 10:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above discussion. I just do not understand a valid reason in policy to delete. Bearian ( talk ) 18:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bearian : AfD is also for disputed redirects. Just copying the information from article X to new article Y (without attribution to boot) and then abandoning it is not helpful and a good reason for redirection Fram ( talk ) 06:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Fram . A changed ! vote. Bearian ( talk ) 14:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kohima#History . There may come a time when a separate article is required, but we are not close that now. Better to let the article develop organically, splitting at this stage is just inviting a content fork . Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk ) 21:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kohima#History per above. // Timothy :: talk 09:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge As per Xymmax's reasoning above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Newspapers published in Kalgoorlie-Boulder: As far as I can see, all of these papers are already listed at the linked article. Does not seem necessary to me. Adam Black talk • contributions 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Australia . Adam Black talk • contributions 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Though a merge may be the outcome of an AFD debate, there are other venues for proposing mergers. Geschichte ( talk ) 17:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My apologies, this is my first time proposing something for merging. I'll have a thorough look for information on merging articles. Thanks for pointing this out. Adam Black talk • contributions 17:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Goldfields-Esperance newspapers per nom and WP:PAGEDECIDE . The amount of information available on the topic suggests it would be better handled by using the larger geographic scope. Sdkb talk 17:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect after merging per Sdkb. Lorstaking ( talk ) 09:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Goldfields-Esperance newspapers per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Nothing wrong with using AfD for seeking merge. CharlesWain ( talk ) 18:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

WPBP-LP: I'm not seeing anything much else to show that the subject meets the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt ( talk ) 19:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Mississippi . JMWt ( talk ) 19:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A low-power municipal broadcaster serving their community clinches N in this case; we usually reserve deletion for low-powers for broadcasters we can't identify, which are part of nationwide 'satellite translator' networks or which only exist to obstruct other broadcasters for taking over. This is actively broadcasting and I see no deletion case here, but certainly expansion. Nate • ( chatter ) 19:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Switch to merge Agreed with WCQ, this is probably better fitting in within the existing body of the Pearl article, which is hardly large. Nate • ( chatter ) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Pearl, Mississippi : at least if there is anything sourceable to merge. (It's a municipal-owned station, so this is a more logical alternative than might otherwise be the case.) In any event, this appears to be another remnant of the looser notability "standards" in this topic area c. 2012 (and more broadly prior to this 2021 RfC ), which used to be centered more on mere existence than the GNG (even though existence is not notability ). WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination. This station is only notable at the local level, but incorporating pertinent information into the Pearl, Mississippi page would work before deletion. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Frederick Augustus Coe: Google and perplexity.ai have nothing. Wire723 ( talk ) 18:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to William Robertson Coe . No BLP issues to consider. — siro χ o 22:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. No notability found. Zero. Thus, there is also no justification to merge the subject to a notable bio just because the subjects are related. - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 16:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to justify the merge. There is information in this article that is useful to a biography of William Robertson Coe , like details about that article's subject's immigration (ship, destination, where subject settled, etc). This is essentially a good faith WP:CONTENTFORK (a semi- WP:REDUNDANTFORK ) and should be merged into the correct article. I volunteer to handle the merge if that is the consensus. — siro χ o 20:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as a reasonable WP:ATD . This is a possible search term and verified information can well be placed in the son's article. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Ventus (Kingdom Hearts): The main problem with the article is there is next to no reception about him as a character, and none that passes any amount of WP:SIGCOV . There is nothing, but passing mentions from the game reviews. I cannot find anything per WP:BEFORE . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 10:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of Kingdom Hearts . The characters are certainly noteworthy as part of a group, but there's nothing indicating this character is standalone notable. There are a great many primary sources, but Wikipedia is not FANDOM and also requires SIGCOV in secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge No commentary besides some trivial "wow he looks like Roxas" comments. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. While there is a small consensus to Merge this article, it is also a GA. I think we should hear from more editors before merging an article declared a GA into another, much longer article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above - Outside of the primary sources (the games themselves and official KH publications), the sources are all general reviews of Birth By Sleep or the KH franchise as a whole, with the small bits content mentioning Ventus in specific being cherry picked out to comprise the "Reception" section. Many of these sources only very briefly talk about him, or only talk about all three of the characters in BBS as a set without any commentary on Ventus specifically. Searching for sources outside of the article turns up plenty of articles mentioning him while discussing the plots of the game or in gameplay guides, but not much in the way of actual analysis or reception of Ventus. Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of Kingdom Hearts . Despite being a main character in BBS, his role in KH3 is limited as a side character at best and compared to the other main characters who have appeared with more significant roles in the franchise, I'd say WP:SIGCOV keeps this article from being in effect. Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

K35DG-D: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Education , and California . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why not Merge it with a merge tag instead of an AFD tag then? Still think it should be merged, it’s just a weird choice not to use the tag. Danubeball ( talk ) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No support for delete, just a vague comment on merging. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 15:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Television stations meet GNG based on their publicly available license application alone. There's an SNG that explains this but its name eludes me. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 00:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge They had a license, they stopped operating and they fail WP:GNG . Merging to the mother-university is the best option. The Banner talk 07:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with University of California, San Diego#Student life : Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV . Contray to what the IP said, we no longer keep television stations articles just because the station is licenced by the FCC, based on this 2021 RfC . All we have here are some FCC licenses, which don't qualify as SIGCOV. Merge as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Storm Prediction Center mesoscale discussion 329: It fails WP:N as a little-known but routine product issued by the Storm Prediction Center and is a WP:CONTENTFORK of content that can easily be condensed and included in 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado . United States Man ( talk ) 06:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Too niche to be notable by any means. Noah Talk 13:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge — I am opposed to condensing/merging (due to this meaning that like 1 or 2 sentences is merged only), but not opposed to a true merge into 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado . The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Arkansas , Louisiana , Mississippi , and Tennessee . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Duplicates material already provided by Wkipedia article mentioned above in less technical terms readily understood by the typical user of Wikipedia. The vast majority of text of this article is too technical and not useful enough to be used in Wikipedia. Paul H. ( talk ) 19:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete — Not notable, no reason to exist outside of the Rolling Fork article. Penitentes ( talk ) 22:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge — Not notable for an article in any regard. Definitely just clutter. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 16:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – Per nom, essentially is content fork of 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado and List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions and content can easily be merged into one of those. RandomInfinity17 ( talk - contributions ) 21:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado : too technical for an article but good in the rolling fork article. 72.68.134.26 ( talk ) 22:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – content fork with no tangible notability or impact. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat ) 02:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 14:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Katsa: This is just the Mossad version of a case officer , which every intelligence agency has. Every linguistic variant of the same concept does not need a separate article. The term of "Katsa" is not notable on its own. The article's sourcing refers to katsas who are in Mossad departments covered in the organization's article. No need for a separate article here. Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I would like to hear more opinions in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Mossad . As the nominator mentions, there's no need for a separate article on this, and no real indication of standalone notability. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 22:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Pichu: Zero WP:SIGCOV . A single usable source [51] doesn't help. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no evidence of BEFORE asserted and nom admits one unquestionably usable source already in article. Odds of zero more? Pretty low. If not kept, should be merged into Pikachu , but I'm pretty sure there's enough coverage, given its proximity/relationship to the most popular/iconic Pokemon. Jclemens ( talk ) 18:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on what? Do you assume every nomination that doesn't explicitly state a BEFORE search hasn't done one? Not sure there's any reason to jump to that conclusion without providing counter-evidence (sourcing) of your own first. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course I do. On what basis would you not? AGF expects us to presume that best practices have been followed, and if followed, documented. Do you want me to ABF and presume that a nom did a BEFORE and didn't follow best practices by posting the results? When a nominator fails to follow best practices, that itself is evidence for an outcome other than what they suggest. No editor is obligated to lift a finger to refute an assertion provided without evidence: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens . Jclemens ( talk ) 03:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You need to provide evidence that a BEFORE search wasn't done, not baselessly muse about it . Did you find other GNG-supporting sources or not? "Pretty sure there's enough coverage" doesn't cut it and you should know that by now. Sergecross73 msg me 11:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but this is wrong as a matter of both policy and logic. "no evidence of BEFORE asserted" is a statement of fact: It's simply either true or disprovable. Calling neutral statements of fact casting aspersion is itself inappropriate behavior: address my arguments, don't accuse me of misconduct absent any misconduct. On a logical front, asking one editor to prove that another editor did not do something which leaves no on-wiki evidence is impossible and absurd. Contra your You need to provide evidence that a BEFORE search wasn't done I did not assert that no BEFORE had been done, rather that the nom had not asserted that one had. Sergecross73 feel free to retract and apologize for your posting, and once that's out of the way I will address your sourcing query. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, but the moment you opened your comment with the word "keep", it ceased to be a "neutral" comment. Feel free to keep trying to split hairs though, this line of reasoning hasn't persuaded a single person, nor has anyone provided a valid path to meeting the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . While what's there isn't particularly strong, its sourcing isn't completely horrible. I would be unopposed to a merge if that's where the consensus leads, but I don't believe Pichu's sourcing state is so bad as to warrant a deletion. I performed a search, though there isn't really too much beyond listicles such as these. While they can be used to buff the reception section a bit, there aren't too many sources beyond these that aren't already in the article. I also found these two book sources , though they're relatively weak. I thought I'd bring them up just in case, regardless. I may have missed things though, so if anyone finds anything else semi useful, it can be added to the article or acknowledged via comment. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Content farms make up the lion's share of coverage. The nomination contradicts itself by saying "zero SIGCOV" and then showing a piece of SIGCOV, and besides the Kotaku source mentioned above, there is also this profile of Pichu, but I still don't believe it fulfills the depth needed for GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep or Merge . The Kotaku article is good for GNG and the IGN profile article is at best partial. I feel there needs to be at least WP:THREE reliable, independent, secondary sources for this. The rest of the article is filler that could be merged with Pikachu . Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all. WP:BEFORE shows coverage that does not quite add up to WP:SIGCOV . But it's enough that this should be WP:PRESERVEd as an WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Into the related Pokemon list. While back tried to find sources with no luck of anything tangible. I thought at one point just how weak it was might've been a good angle to lean into, but it's not there. I definitely don't think Pikachu is a good merge target however. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . In spite of the claim of editors who will go unnamed, multiple users, including the nominator, conducted WP:BEFORE properly, and saying that it's okay to ABF because he didn't "follow the rules" is very silly. Regardless, after conducting multiple attempts to find any good sourcing, I was unable to come up with much at all. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did I miss where the nom said somewhere a BEFORE was conducted? If so, please show me so I can apologize for my misstatement. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - sourcing is weak and the source acknowledged in the nomination, while long, isn't particularly helpful in actually writing prose for a Wikipedia article. Complaints about not doing a BEFORE search are meritless without proof. Just one many many routine WP:POKEMON . Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 ( talk ) 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't make any sense. The nomination advocates deletion or merger, and doesn't contain a valid keep argument, let alone advocate for that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - As per points already discussed, I believe merging with the related list would be the best option. Ekdalian ( talk ) 13:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Razorback (character): Industrial Insect (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 20:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am finding even less on this extremely minor character than usual when it comes to these articles on obscure comic characters. I don't think this one even has the bare minimum amount of coverage or notability to even be included in one of the "lists of characters". Rorshacma ( talk ) 20:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters as an WP:ATD-M Lightburst ( talk ) 01:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Merge target articles (one of which is actually a Redirect page) being proposed here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R per WP:PRESERVE . BOZ ( talk ) 03:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Controversy regarding the number of Palestinian casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Does it need a spin-off yet or should we just add to the main article if needed? BuySomeApples ( talk ) 01:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Israel , and Palestine . Shellwood ( talk ) 01:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war where it can be covered sufficiently in a subsection. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 02:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, this is an obvious merge to Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm inclined in favor of merging, but there are many sources which cover this topic alone in great detail, at least giving it a cursory look through. There seems to be enough material for a spin-off article of sufficient detail. So, the question for me comes down to if it needs a spin-off article? And I'm not sure how to answer that, since we aren't writing a paper encyclopedia here. Sagflaps ( talk ) 15:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC) (This editor is non EC and per WP:ARBECR , is not permitted to comment here) Selfstudier ( talk ) 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Subsequently granted EC status on 21 January. Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . The proliferation of articles about this war is verging on silly. It's simply WP:TOOSOON to have a spin-off (or WP:POVFORK , depending on your perspective) of the casualties article ; there may be (some, scant) coverage in news sources, but this type of topic would be better served by allowing for scholarly analysis that could only be done in hindsight, once the fog of war has lifted, if ever. WillowCity (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war ; That article is not too long. Marokwitz ( talk ) 20:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm the creator of this article, and I am okay with merging it to Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article. Crampcomes ( talk ) 02:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been moved so it is a redirect and it looks like Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war is the proper target article now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz ( talk • contribs ) 01:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as seems like best solution. Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 16:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above, to avoid content forking. Carrite ( talk ) 03:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. AryKun ( talk ) 13:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Abner Jenkins: Industrial Insect (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As stated in WP:BKD , only famous books should have articles on individual characters. While Marvel is famous, this is not a main character of the franchise. Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 14:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: J in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: J in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .... especially as Abner has operated under other names outside of Beetle. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 20:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Battle of Vasylkiv: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING apply. Cinderella157 ( talk ) 03:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Russia , and Ukraine . Curbon7 ( talk ) 03:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : WP:ATD is a redirect to Northern Ukraine campaign . Alternatively, the article can be converted to the "Vasylkiv during the Russian invasion of Ukraine" (courtesy ping to proposer Mr.User200 ), with a broader scope. Initial reports of a large-scale battle here do not seem to have manifested, and are likely a result of the fog-of-war. Curbon7 ( talk ) 03:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would agree that anything of value could be merged into Northern Ukraine campaign , though it already has a section Ukrainian victory at Vasylkiv and the content there probably requires review. A search of news here reterns only one hit for "Battle of Vasylkiv" (search in quotes) that is not Wiki or a Wiki mirror. This is not a "named" battle. The reports that do exist look more like smoke and mirrors and/or largely inflated. Cinderella157 ( talk ) 04:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Vasylkiv attacks or Vasylkiv during the Russian invasion of Ukraine . There are sources giving sigcov to events in Vasylkiv during the initial invasion (like the Guardian and NYT articles), including the reports of Russian landing attempts, so WP:GNG is satisfied. There were definitely missile attacks. There may have been incursions by sabotage groups. There may or may not have been an abortive Russian plan to seize the airbase. There probably were not cargo planes full of Russian troops shot down, but that this was reported is an event of the war. (The rooster should be mentioned.)  — Michael Z . 16:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just thought I'd mention that currently, Vasylkiv during the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a Redirect to this article. L iz Read! Talk! 20:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Northern Ukraine campaign -- Like other wars, not every action is independently notable. Sources here are WP:PRIMARYNEWS (and, no, lots and lots of news mentions in the weeks around the battle do not eliminated the need for secondary sources that analyse the longer-term WP:EFFECT required by WP:NEVENT ), and there is lack of WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DEPTH . There is no policy basis for this to be standalone article. Note to closer: If merge is not the consensus, please consider these as arguments for deletion. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Vasylkiv attacks or Vasylkiv during the Russian invasion of Ukraine , since no battle took place and most events reported or covered are separate incidents. Mr.User200 ( talk ) 13:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge is another option. Mr.User200 ( talk ) 02:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Northern Ukraine campaign as an ATD; WP:NOPAGE applies. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Astros–Dodgers rivalry: The content included in the article can be found in other articles. Nemov ( talk ) 03:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball . Nemov ( talk ) 03:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , anything here that can be placed into the "Impact and aftermath" section of the sing stealing article should be placed there. Otherwise, Dodgers fans are and will always be passed at the Astros for this one moment, but it doesn't mean the two are historical rivals. Let's see how things change if they meet again. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Houston Astros vs. Los Angeles Dodgers after doing any pertinent WP:SUMMARY work there and at the team articles to merge key points into the appropriate sections. Some of the rationale in my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry (3rd nomination) also applies here, though I'm not going to do the same tedious cite-by-cite analysis I did over there. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Eh, unlike the Cardinals–Royals rivalry, this one doesn't have enough mustard for even a paragraph mention. It's really just FANCRUFT and Dodgers fans being their salty selves. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Houston Astros sign stealing scandal Anything that is of note in this article, which in my opinion only includes incidents after the scandal, can be added to the “Impact and aftermath” section of that article. Brandon Nimmo ( talk ) 17:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Houston Astros vs. Los Angeles Dodgers Subject does not meet the WP:GNG for a standalone article, but some of the sourced info can be added to the main MLB rivalry article. User:Let'srun 16:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. No rivalry exists between these two teams. While they were both in NL playoff contention in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and have both been consistent World Series contenders over the past 5-10 years, teams being simultaneously competitive does not imply they are rivals. No sources are present to establish a rivalry between the team, and much of the alleged "hatred" amongst fans stems from the Houston Astros sign stealing scandal . I don't think there is enough substantiated content of a rivalry to even merit a mention on the rivalries page either, and for that reason I oppose a redirect. Frank Anchor 13:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge/Redirect target articles mentioned. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Meets WP:GNG . KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. No rivalry exists between these two teams, so a redirect is not appropriate. Reading the article will show this as does the lack of sources. WP:NRIVALRY points to GNG and there are no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 06:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Besides, it should be Dodgers–Astros rivalry anyways ;) Conyo14 ( talk ) 08:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Limited participation after last relist. Arguments for deleting, keeping and redirecting ( Houston Astros sign stealing scandal / Major League Baseball rivalries#Houston Astros vs. Los Angeles Dodgers ) have been presented. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 18:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Houston Astros vs. Los Angeles Dodgers as most of the details of this rivalry, maybe except for the aftermath of the sign stealing scandal, is not notable enough for a separate article. Polser11 ( talk ) 02:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources indicate that the Astros and Dodgers have played each other, but do not establish a "rivalry". – Muboshgu ( talk ) 20:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development: Wozal ( talk ) 23:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep and expand . My initial assumption was that this would be a subunit of a larger School of Education at GW, but it appears to be a unique and self-contained entity at the same level as the George Washington University Law School , the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences , and other such departments. The article is not without sources, and I expect that more can be found. BD2412 T 02:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into George Washington University , article is not currently of sufficient quality to be standalone and is largely supported by primary sources. - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into George Washington University of which all the sources used in the article are. Like Indefensible I don't see the article as a standalone article for the moment. Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 11:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Lisa Hamilton (Dead or Alive): Fails WP:GNG , I would heavily recommend the article creator take a look at the details of what WP:SIGCOV entails. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters . The reception is 100% listicles, so in-depth coverage required by GNG is not met. WP:FANCRUFT , sadly. But the character list should be able to accomodate such information. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per reasons above. Relying mostly on listicles. I think Helena Douglas might be also potential to be nom'ed. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 04:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GlatorNator : She wasn't created nearly as recently, but I agree. IGN seems to be the only publication with SIGCOV about her. She hasn't been notable since 2014 when the article was unmerged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GlatorNator : @ Zxcvbnm : I went ahead and merged Helena. I couldn't find much sources as a cursory glance, and even the citations referring to polls noted her as a much lower character when it came to popularity. If it gets unmerged and someone tries to fight it with no proper sourcing, then yeah I agree on AfD.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I honestly don't know if there's anything to merge, otherwise I'd have made a merge discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters . No SIGCOV. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 12:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center: A facility operated by Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Source eval: Comments Source Primary, from Penn State Penn State University". www.psu.edu. August 9, 2017. Retrieved January 13, 2022. Primary, from Penn State 2. ^ Wall, John. "History of the Rock Springs Facility". Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved January 5, 2022. Primary, from Penn State 3. ^ Jump up to:a b Wall, John (2001). "A History of the Rock Springs Facility". Penn State Agriculture. Spring/Summer 2001: 11. Nothing about the current facility, covers an event "Ag Progress Days" and the dairy farm that used to be there 4. ^ Venesky, Tom (August 7, 2023). "Before Ag Progress Days, Rock Springs Was Dairy Farm". Lancaster Farming. Retrieved August 18, 2023. Primary, from Penn State 5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Research Farms". Penn State Department of Plant Science. Retrieved January 13, 2022. Primary, from Penn State 6. ^ "Entomology Farm at Rock Springs". Penn State Department of Entomology. Retrieved January 13, 2022. Primary, from Penn State 7. ^ "Facilities". Penn State Department of Plant Pathology. Retrieved January 13, 2022. Nothing about the current facility, covers an event "Ag Progress Days" 8. ^ "Penn State's Ag Progress Days offering wide range of activities, exhibits". Morning Ag Clips. August 1, 2023. Retrieved August 18, 2023. Primary, from Penn State 9. ^ "Ag Progress Days". pcntv.com. Retrieved August 18, 2023. Primary, from Penn State 10. ^ Wall, John (2001). "A Yearly Farm Fair Extravaganza". Penn State Agriculture. Spring/Summer 2001: 12. Nothing about the current facility, covers an event "Ag Progress Days" 11. ^ Jump up to:a b "Ag Progress Days Returning for In-Person Event in August". StateCollege.com. June 18, 2021. Retrieved January 13, 2022. Primary, from Penn State 12. ^ Jump up to:a b "About the Show". Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved January 13, 2022. Only three of the sources above meet WP:IS, those three have no information about the subject (the Research Center) but brief promotional information for a year event that takes place on the property, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. . BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection toa consensus redirect to Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences // Timothy :: talk 05:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Education , and Pennsylvania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences per nom. Jfire ( talk ) 05:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per above. I didn't find anything to indicate notability, but I wouldn't actually be terribly surprised if there turned out to be more somewhere about this. Regardless, merge allows information to be preserved. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of disproved mathematical ideas: No inclusion criteria - what is an "idea"? Maybe a list of disproved conjectures would be a reasonable idea, per Template:Disproved conjectures , but this is not what we have here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If someone thinks the article needs improvement, then let him improve it instead of getting it deleted. What kind of service to the world is it to delete articles? I think it's interesting to have a list of disproved mathematical ideas, and I would hope that people would add to it rather than criticizing and trying to get it deleted. Eric Kvaalen ( talk ) 09:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eric Kvaalen WP:ITSINTERESTING ... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . What counts as a mathematical idea is rather vague, this should at least be specified in the article. If one takes mathematical idea to mean conjecture , then there is an overlap with List of conjectures#Disproved (no longer conjectures) . Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 10:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . After some consideration, I'd say the best course of action is to merge to List of conjectures#Disproved (no longer conjectures) , and format as a table to unify the style with the sections Open problems and Conjectures now proved (theorems) . -- Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 13:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We don't need both this and List of conjectures#Disproved (no longer conjectures) . XOR'easter ( talk ) 14:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Seems like a notable topic that doesn’t need a separate article Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Swat lynching incident: WP is not newspaper. Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've merged the content into List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan to ensure that editors' efforts are not wasted. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan , per @ Saqib 's comment. Incident isn't WP:N enough to warrant an article. — Mjks28 ( talk ) 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. I mean it was already so in theory it can be redirected but, yes. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 12:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge as per the above recomendation I do agree with the nominator's concern. 223.123.10.196 ( talk ) 01:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There is a continued coverage about the incident. see . Mfarazbaig ( talk ) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) —

merge

Car speed and energy consumption: The article is a high school level analysis of air drag, with plenty of OR, and is factually incorrect to boot. See also this discussion. Fermiboson ( talk ) 12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Engineering , and Technology . Fermiboson ( talk ) 12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the presented analysis actually is slightly above secondary education level in the Netherlands, so above high school level in the US: there rather on the level of first year university physics. The analysis is meant to be accessible to advanced high school students, within the scope of the Wikipedia mission. "plenty of OR", probably meaning "plenty of Original Research", is factually incorrect, as the complete argument in the article was condensed from the referenced book/website of MacKay, Science Advisor to the UK Department of Energy 2009-2014. submitter of this deletion proposal wrote on 19 November on her/his talk page "in short, I’m not disputing the factuality of the derivations in the article, but WP:NOTTEXTBOOK applies.", so she/he apparently retracted the complaint of "incorrectness to boot". I am correcting the textbook style i hope satisfactorily for all, by comparing the article with, e.g., Drag (physics) . Thank you, Hansmuller ( talk ) 09:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 13:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Fuel economy in automobiles . While the analysis presented in this article leaves much to be desired, the topic itself is notable enough to be included as a section in the proposed target. Owen× ☎ 22:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I don't see the merit in merging content that has to be fixed wholesale before merging, rather than writing from scratch whatever we don't already have in the suggested target article. XOR'easter ( talk ) 00:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep @Fermiboson @Ldm1954 The physics is incorrect? No, everybody, also the referenced nice papers by Kenneth Holmberg et al. (2012, 2013), agrees we have 1. acceleration, 2. air drag, and 3. further friction, and the applicable formulae. The quoted "5% air drag" holds only at constant 60 km/h, while the wikipedia article considered the quadratic effect over a range of low and high speeds. It is irrelevant for the thrust of the article: there is basically a quadratic dependence on speed of energy consumption, everybody agrees on that. The source of the Wikipedia article is the report by professor MacKay, official scientific adviser to the British government, the book Sustainable energy without the hot air 2008, free online www.withoutthehotair.com. We can easily incorporate the results of Holmberg et al. in this Wikipedia article. Merging? the article with other long articles muddles the arguments both ways, the TooLongDidNotRead effect. Wikipedia needs a relatively simple article on the vital subject of energy consumption by cars and the effect of speed, right? Thank you, Hansmuller ( talk ) 13:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia should have an article, but only if it is correct. The current Wikipedia page states: "At higher speed the energy consumption of a car per unit distance increases proportional to the square of the speed. This is caused by the air drag which dominates over the tyre rolling resistance at high speeds." This is misleading as it is focusing on the 5% contributions, and ignoring the dominant 95% internal loses due to friction in the engine/transmission and also the efficiency of the engine etc as a function of speed. Delete , and perhaps @ Hansmuller will write an accurate version that includes all terms Ldm1954 ( talk ) 13:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the suggestion which i followed up. The dominant contribution of heat losses at low to moderate speeds has been included in the article. At high speeds however, air drag losses exceed other losses, refer to Graph 3 and the discussion in the article. Thank you, Hansmuller ( talk ) 10:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merge Delete I've edited Energy-efficient driving to include those parts of the subject article I consider notable. The case presented against this article is weak. The case claims is is "high-school level analysis"; the audience of Wikipedia includes high-school level readers. The case claims WP:OR citing no examples. The case claims the article is factually incorrect citing a discussion which includes exactly one -- disputed -- claim of incorrect content. In the linked discussion the "tone" of the article was disliked. It seems to me to be a completely typical Wikipedia article. The case did not make the claim that the topic was not notable or otherwise unsuitable for Wikipedia. It is possible that only a minimal case was presented because it was assumed that everyone will vote delete. The major issues I see with the article are Title seems a bit non-encyclopedic. Relies primarily on a single source Contains disputed claims. These are all issues that can be repaired. Johnjbarton ( talk ) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Johnjbarton and also @ Hansmuller , please look at Fuel economy in automobiles#Energy considerations . This has a comprehensive list of the energy consumption contributions, which is far larger than the two in Car speed and energy consumption . You can also look at the similar information in Speed and fuel economy studies , and the comparable article in Energy-efficient driving plus there are numerous Google searchable articles from organizations such as AAA , RAC , DOE as well as popular science articles. The energy consumption is a very well-trodden topic, being a balance between $$$ for simple steels compared to superalloys or refractory metals versus engine efficiency, drive train and related frictional losses and other contributions such as drag and rolling friction. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 21:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As I said on the physics talk page, comparing this article to Fuel economy in automobiles is off base. I think the thrust of the article is actions existing drivers can take. Merging this content into Energy-efficient driving on the other hand, would be a win. That article is more comprehensive and yet it has no reference to Mackay or to Holmberg et al The vehicle speed section is weak compared with this article. Johnjbarton ( talk ) 23:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm working at it, thanks. Hansmuller ( talk ) 22:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : the physics is sound, according to the MacKay source and further literature. The referenced Holmberg/Erdemir articles , incorrectly used for refutation, actually support the Wikipedia article: 1. Holmberg et al. / Global energy consumption due to friction in passenger cars / Tribology International 47 (2012) 221–231 agree with this Wikipedia article, they state on page 223: "The external air drag is the air resistance of the car when it moves on the road. It is proportional to the square of the driving speed and directly related to the size and shape of the vehicle, usually expressed as a multiplication of the drag coefficient by the projected front area [34,35]. In this study, 60 km/h is assumed as an average driving speed for all cars globally in urban, highway, and any other kind of driving.". Holmberg et al. do not further address the effect of speed. 2. Holmberg et al., Global energy consumption due to friction in passenger cars, transportation and industry , STLE Annual Meeting, Detroit, USA, 5-9.5.2013, echo the MacKay argument for a quadratic dependence on speed on their pages 8 and 9, with graphs similar to MacKay we can use as reference in the article, and refine the argument on other sources of friction. Air drag losses dominate at high speeds, Holmberg/Erdemir agree. Thanks for considering this matter, important for traffic air pollution vs. car speed as well, Hansmuller ( talk ) 13:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Energy efficiency in transport . Exact same topic with duplicate material. better covered in other page बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Energy efficiency in transport is about different modes of transport, not about the effect of driver actions on energy efficiency. Energy-efficient driving is a much closer match. Johnjbarton ( talk ) 15:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] agree बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 18:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies to Hansmuller for going so long without replying. I will respond to his points both on my tp and here below. In summary, my argument is not just that the article currently is an essay, although it undoubtedly is (I can elaborate more on this if need be but don't see the need right now), but that it can be nothing but an essay, under the area that the title delineates. With regard to the factual accuracy claim, I based it entirely upon Ldm1954 's looking into the source paper, for which I would also like to apologise as I should have done more extensive research myself. That said, while maybe "factually inaccurate" is not the most precise term, I do think that the article cannot be written in a manner where due weight is given. Since car speed is such a minor portion of the efficiency of automobiles (this part I think everyone here agrees with), any article that talks about only the impact of car speed is going to create an impression of disproportionate impact. In any case, that is not my main point, and if you still want me to remove "factually inaccurate" I am open to doing so. The article currently cites two papers. One of these papers talks about a factor of energy consumption independent of speed, and the other is essentially an appendix to a popular policy document (which to be fully honest looks self-published to me, but I don't see anything wrong with the content so let's roll with it.) Everything else is a textbook, relating to the elementary derivation of the v^2 formula for air resistance (and other forms of resistance). We can cut all of that and simply cite the proportionality to the papers involved since there is no need to piece together our own derivation when the result is accepted. (Notable pieces of OR that would be cut include, for example, "energy consumption over a distance" section.) We are then essentially left with: A reproduction of the proportions of modes of energy loss from said paper; A reproduction of a graph of energy loss vs velocity from two papers; A description of the trend represented in such graphs. Note moreover that: A dependence of efficiency on speed is not the major focus of the one paper that actually mentions it. The experimental results from aforementioned paper have nothing to do with the v^2 dependence. With this in mind, what can the article actually say? "Theoretically, energy consumption scales as v^2. Because of 'various factors', this doesn't actually happen at all (see graph). Also, it turns out other things have far more impact on energy consumption than car speed does, so it doesn't actually matter that much unless you're on a highway." If we have to mention all kinds of different factors not included in the title to have an article, then essentially throw our hands up and say "see results here, which we can't predict, but doesn't matter anyways", why not simply do all that at the place where this is already done ? Fermiboson ( talk ) 04:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some additional notes, as the above message was getting clunkier and clunkier with every note I tried to add and edit into it: There are still claims I consider factually inaccurate in the article. For example: The graph captions and text don't really mention the fact that there is a large mismatch between v^2 predictions and actual data. I personally had to read through the thing three times, and the associated source twice, before I figured out what was going on. That air pollution is proportional to the speed squared. Neglecting how ill defined "air pollution" is (total emitted pollutants? Pollutant concentration?), the statement "air pollution increases with petrol consumption" is unsourced, and off the top of my head I can think of several factors (such as increased combustion temperatures at high engine rpms) that could change the speed dependence of total amount of air pollutants emitted. I think that there is a possibility for the article to merit a keep, if we are able to find sources to cover some of the following: Popular misconceptions about the dependence of energy consumption on speed Adjustments that car designers make to control the dependence of energy consumption on speed The effects of speed limits, or other forms of speed control, on roadside pollution, gas consumption etc in certain areas. These would allow the article to instead talk about the way the speed dependence influences other factors, which would not require any synthesis. With a cursory search I have not been able to find any. Fermiboson ( talk ) 04:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fermiboson Sorry, but please put these kinds of comments on Talk:Car_speed_and_energy_consumption . If an item in the article is incorrect and unreferenced, correct it or delete it. If an item in the article is incorrect and referenced, find another reference or let it go. If an item in the article is incorrect don't threaten to delete. There are lots of reasons to delete but none of them include incorrect items. Johnjbarton ( talk ) 16:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not arguing that we should delete the article because things are incorrect, I am arguing that we should do so because there is nothing left that isn't either essay or reproduction of information after those things are removed. I pointed out several factual inaccuracies because @ Hansmuller asked me to do so on my tp. Fermiboson ( talk ) 16:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with @ Fermiboson . My opinion of the article is that it will mislead readers because it only considers the very minor terms, not the big ones. Consider the two main Figures, Graph 1 and Graph 2. From Graph 1 I should drive at 30 km/h or less. From Graph 2 I should drive a Prius at 30 km/h or less, and not buy a BMW which does not obey anything in the article. If I now go to an authoritative source such as https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10312 or the full data at https://tedb.ornl.gov/ a different picture emerges. Three key points: Engine efficiency is not linear, in many cases it increases with speed if we ignore frictional losses, see for instance http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/237/1/012011 (as just a source I pulled quickly). Frictional losses in cars are not speed independent, it is much more complicated than this, see for instance https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants7050039 . This is lubrication science, and not a simple high-school problem. At low speed you can have boundary lubrication; at higher speeds you transition to lower friction and hydrodynamic lubrication, see Stribeck curve . You also have to worry about viscosity changes with engine temperature etc. Rolling resistance is not so simple, see the decent article on it . You can always purchase low rolling resistance tires . We already have a good article at Energy-efficient driving which is far more detailed. I see no reason for this article to exist. Energy efficiency, engine efficiency and lubrication are not simple topics. For fun, something you won't find clearly spelt out here or elsewhere. A few years ago as an experiment a German automobile company worked on a very clean and efficient automobile engine, so there would be no particulates in the engine to lead to wear or frictional losses. The result, horrible. It turned out that they made it so clean that there was no graphitic material being produced inside the engine, and graphitic materials are good solid lubricants. Tribology is complex. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 00:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your posts with these detailed references make a compelling case that this topic is WP:Notable . Again the accuracy of the article should be discussed in the Talk page. The graph in [22] makes the important point that the graphs that MacKay chose are not the ones that are important to drivers. What counts for drivers is mpg vs speed, not energy vs speed. And the graphs on energy.gov show that the speed effect is much less dramatic once you factor in the miles gained at higher speed. Performance of a small compression ignition engine fuelled by liquified petroleum gas does not seem to be related to the article. The Knauder reference is about engine speed effects, not vehicle speed effect. As you know transmissions cause these to be not equal. The Rolling resistance of tires is approximately constant once you have purchased them. See https://www.trb.org/publications/sr/sr286.pdf I disagree that Energy-efficient driving is a good article. For example, the mpg effect per the energy.gov example is not discussed. It needs work and we should encourage improvements. In my opinion this overall approach of dumping on the article does not improve Wikipedia. Our goal should be better articles and telling editors their work stinks and should be deleted the worst way to accomplish that goal. The most you can accomplish that way is the deletion of one small article that everyone agrees is flawed and driving away the editor. Big deal. If on the other hand you ask what can we do to guide an editor towards better contributions, that editor may go on to make improvements over time. Since all of the dumping takes time I don't see any real cost of a more positive approach. Johnjbarton ( talk ) 02:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We will agree to disagree. I am not an expert on automobiles and lubrication, I have only collaborated with people who are for ~20 years. My focus has been more on nanotribology, so I only know the applied results from conferences and general relevance in papers/proposals. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 12:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . All the encyclopedic material has been merged to Energy-efficient driving , and the redirect is not useful. Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 06:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Mashriqi Jews: The article is essentially absent; the concept is rarely used. Альдий ( talk ) 20:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions . Альдий ( talk ) 20:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Middle East . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Mizrahi Jews per nom. Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete I see very limited value, but if someone finds someone, a partial merge may be justified. FortunateSons ( talk ) 15:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Xbox Exhibition disks: In searching for mention of the series, there is next to nothing. Any mention tends to be under primary sources that lists their contents, or, as in the article, link to the disks on the Internet Archive. I can only find one secondary source that mentions the series in very minor passing from Kotaku, which I have included on the article. As raised on the talk page over a decade ago, plenty of platforms have demo disks; that they were distributed by Microsoft to market the Xbox may be better addressed on the page for the console itself. Grateful for your thoughts. Vrxces ( talk ) 00:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to game demo it's looking like. It could be discussed as part of a section about the history of game demos. However, the original content they contain does not seem sufficient to merit an article, it seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : SIGCOV is not a requirement for notability, it merely generates a presumption as to notability if SIGCOV can be established. Even without SIGCOV, I think GNG is met here. XBOX had a massive cultural impact, and as the Kotaku article notes, these discs were a part of that system's launch. Furthermore, they were the origins of what eventually became DLC. Additionally, these disks are highly prized by collectors, and that value as a collectable lends some strength to these disks being regarded as notable in their own right. For the above reasons I disagree that this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Perhaps an individual article for each of these discs would be so; but in a collected list article like we have here, I think its fine and encyclopedic. I don't think a merge with game demo would be appropriate. What makes these disks notable is not the fact that they were game demos per se; but that they were part of the XBOX's launch marketing, the launch marketing for numerous notable titles, and remain prized by collectors. As far as individual demo disks go, this series of demo disks are about nearly as notable as you get. Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a false interpretation of GNG policy. SIGCOV is indeed required for notability. Articles without SIGCOV are not notable or suitable for Wikipedia, period. "Presumed" means that even IF a topic has SIGCOV, it may still not be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're reading that policy wrong. Topics are presumed notable with SIGCOV, however, it is still possible for some topics to be assessed as notable outside of the aforementioned GNG presumption. Ultimately if SIGCOV is not met it requires a judgement call on the facts, engaging with what the subject of the article is, and what it is not, with an assessment made as to whether an entry would be notable enough to be encyclopedic. Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are plenty of articles without SIGCOV where the subject of the article has been found through discussion to be otherwise notable upon review. See AfD discussions here , here , as examples; although with even a minimal amount of effort you can find more. For this case, there are verifiable characteristics of this subject that tend toward a conclusion as to its cultural notability. I've spelled them out in my previous comments above. Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ? ??? The ones you linked are not even finished yet, so I'm not sure how you can use them as proof an article with no SIGCOV was kept. This unfinished essay is literally arguing your point should be implemented - the implication being that right now, it isn't. SIGCOV is required. Period. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve never seen this essay before. I’m merely referring to the actual wording of the GNG guideline itself, which does not unequivocally state that SIGCOV is always required. For that reason I actually disagree with the premise of the essay you’ve linked. Yes the AfD’s I linked aren’t complete, but they’re practically at consensus; and if you can be bothered it really isn’t that hard to find other AfD’s where notability has been established without SIGCOV. Jack4576 ( talk ) 16:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you need to spend less time arguing SIGCOV isn't necessary (long shot argument) and more on establishing its notability in any valid sense . Nothing you've particularly said has been backed by reliable sources or even represented in the article. It's just a barebones list of some games on some demo disks. This looks more like a trivial stub you'd see on an Xbox fan wikia or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If, the only reason that people provide for deletion is 'No SIGCOV' without actually engaging in a discussion as to a subject's actual encyclopedic notability; (which would actually require an assessment of what we can determine a subject is and what a subject is not ); then, it is necessary to remind people that SIGCOV is not a strict requirement under GNG. This is not a 'long shot' argument. This is me calling out legalistic arguments that fail to engage in an actual assessment of a subject. Indeed, a frustrating legalistic argument, as it is an argument that is (wilfully?) ignorant of the actual wording of the GNG policy. Regardless, I have made valid arguments as to this subject's notability; if you were willing to engage with them directly. For example, the Kotaku article referenced documents that these demo disks were a precursor to the introduction of DLC. That seems to me a unique attribute about this subject that generates an argument that this subject is notable. If you disagree with the conclusions of that argument; feel free to do so. To my mind though, that unique aspect (the DLC precursor aspect) is enough to merit this article being a keep, albeit perhaps a weak keep. Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but the meaning you're extrapolating from a single passing mention in a Kotaku article is not even close to persuasive to me. Sergecross73 msg me 11:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, reasonable minds may differ Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll say it again - you are straight up incorrect about the "actual wording" of GNG. It's not even a matter of opinion, you are just reading it wrong. Lower on the page under WP:WHYN , it states, straight up, We require "significant coverage" . Continuing to ignore people telling you that has the potential to rise to WP:IDHT . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even beyond that, the GNG is pretty clear about the multiple sources part too. They're not even clearing that incredibly low bar at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "multiple sources are generally expected" not "multiple sources are required" Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have...you historically found success in keeping an article with only a single reference that only mentions the subject in passing? I've been participating at AFD for over a decade, and let me tell you...I have not. I don't recall this ever working for someone without at least citing some other subject-specific notability requirement. This sort of interpretation would effectively render the GNG useless outside of subjects being complete hoaxes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are correct that WP:WHYN states SIGCOV is a requirement. However, the actual general notability guideline as stated, articulates the notability issue in terms of the word presumption ; if SIGCOV were actually a requirement, the GNG sentence would read: "A topic is suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ." Instead it reads: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ." Why would it read that way, unless implicitly, it was possible (in some limited and appropriate circumstances) for a subject to be notable even if SIGCOV was not demonstrated? What would be the utility of the SIGCOV presumption if it would always be required. I am happy to stop commenting about this and follow consensus if you wish to take this to an RfC. In the meantime, I am engaging in good faith, so your pointing to WP:IDHT is inappropriate. Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Higher up in WP:GNG it explains why "presumed" is used. Articles that fall under WP:NOT may still not merit articles, despite passing the first, significant coverage criterion. However, articles like WP:GOLDENRULE clearly state that SIGCOV is non-negotiable. Start an RfC on the subject if you wish, but it is likely you will be told the exact same thing. After all, not having a SIGCOV requirement would make almost anything notable, and the GNG would be pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GOLDENRULE is not policy. Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And your entire argument hinges on a single passing mention and your own unfounded assertion of importance that has persuaded zero participants thus far. Give it a rest. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep your comments in reply relevant please Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm pointing out the irony of you complaining about an essay being "not policy" when your entire stance isn't rooted in policy, essay, or...anything at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to game demo per Zxcvbnm. Fails GNG, lack of SIGCOV. If viewed as a list, it fails LISTN as well. -- ferret ( talk ) 20:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per mine and ferrets comments above. Not even close to enough sourcing, in quality or quantity, to warrant a stand-alone article. Wouldn't even be opposed to a delete honestly. Sergecross73 msg me 11:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This could be covered in game demo , or alternatively in Xbox (console) . It's hard to see why the topic might need a page unto itself. Even if there were much more sourcing available than there is, the subject isn't conceptually separate to such a degree that a dedicated page makes sense. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Xbox (console) or Microsoft Game Studios , or more likely, just redirect. There is simply no assertion of notability in the article. I don't understand what all that rambling above is. It seems to be really torturing the definition of the word 'presumed', which is literally defined in more detail in the second sentence at WP:GNG . If you think the topic is notable, WP:THENFIXIT . Axem Titanium ( talk ) 23:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If I am understanding the above discussion, the contention is that there can be articles that satisfy WP:GNG without WP:SIGCOV as it is only a mere presumption of notability, in the flavor of WP:NEXIST and arguments such as WP:BARE . The rebuttal has been on WP:NRV and that there is, at this moment, one passing mention in sources illustrating this alternative notability. The intent of framing WP:SIGCOV as a presumption for notability and not a requirement reads to me to establish that the standard is higher than WP:SIGCOV alone, not that the WP:SIGCOV is not a substantial consideration in establishing WP:GNG . Vrxces ( talk ) 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Xbox (console) (or another consensus target if one emerges). // Timothy :: talk 04:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , either to Xbox (console) or Game demo per above. The argument that WP:SIGCOV is not needed to pass WP:GNG is a novel on to me. However that seems to be rebutted by by the second sentence of WP:GNG , which explains that the use of "Presumed" is about an article with SIGCOV not getting an article for other reasons, and not an article being kept without SIGCOV. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of names for the Milky Way: WP:NOTDICTIONARY . Pepper Beast (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Pepper Beast (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Mythology , Astronomy , and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the article fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY . GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 01:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is a cut and dry case of WP:NOTDICT . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I think the cross-cultural grouping into common terms (such as associations with birds, or rivers, or streets) is interesting. Maybe just delete the large "List of names in various languages", but those translations related to the "Common names" section can be kept and moved there. Tocharianne ( talk ) 09:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the Common names section (plus Aboriginal Australian languages ) to Milky Way#Etymology and mythology , and redirect. That part does not fit to a dictionary and should a have a place somewhere on Wikipedia. I think it's still little enough to fit into the main article. If that's perceived as too much, I'd be fine with keep, too. Daranios ( talk ) 11:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested by Daranios . Good compromise? Bearian ( talk ) 21:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter): QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fictional elements , Video games , and Japan . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters , per nom. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 17:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters . Her reception made me dry heave a little. Frankly, a character should be defined by more than simply their appearance to merit a standalone page, otherwise it suggests they are not significant, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge There's some magazine mentioning about her, but was kept without improvements at first afd nom. Per WP:TNT . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found this interview , which would be good to flesh out her development post merge, but it's simply WP:PRIMARY and can't count towards notability. Most likely, a lot of the magazine mentions thrown at people in the last AfD were trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters : Per nom's rationale. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters per all. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I think the keep arguments from last time hold up. And since this was eight years ago, she may have more coverage now. In the book From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games , Sarah has two pages covering her. The last AFD also brought up other sources that were, for some reason, not incorporated into the article. MoonJet ( talk ) 05:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

MuscaBus: Sourcing is routine business news. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as non-notable. There isn't much worth merging either given the only real useful content looks be sourced by a fansite. Ajf773 ( talk ) 09:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , I think it's helpful to know that this small-ish town has a city bus system. This could be merged into the Muscatine page and shortened a little. We could basically take the 'service' section and add it to the Muscatine's main page. Gravel for breakfast ( talk ) 12:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Gravel for breakfast or Keep . There are enough sources that aren't fansites, but I can't see enough notability to warrant an article. Last1in ( talk ) 20:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

1997 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit: The only cited source(s) are a dubious website that just lists the scores with no prose/analysis. No independent RS coverage found.Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix . ( t · c ) buidhe 21:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports . ( t · c ) buidhe 21:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are results of old competitions. The Grand Prix committee has no official website and the results were thought to be lost, save for these very few sources. The notability of the Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit has not been challenged, so the results with documented sources should not be challenged either. -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 21:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany , Greece , Netherlands , Slovenia , and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix as an WP:ATD . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix as an WP:ATD . // Timothy :: talk 14:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

King Dedede: Reception sec are full of trivial sources that has been used. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Kirby characters per nom. No prejudice towards recreation if notability can be clearly proven. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I was about to boldy do it in all honesty today til I saw this was done. It's a shame too because DeDeDe's one of gaming's oldest villains and one with some actual changes to his approach over time. At most though I've found were GameRant articles discussing how often his design has been changed. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 18:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Kirby characters The sources in the short reception are just not enough to satisfy notability and sadly there seems to be nothing else of any significance. Fieryninja ( talk ) 18:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge I'm genuinely surprised by how little Dedede has. He seems like he would have more, given he's an iconic antagonist who's gone who tons of character development over the years, but unfortunately I just can't find many sources discussing him in depth, and what's currently there is pretty weak. I will note I did find some stuff while searching that may be worth adding in the merger. See what went into getting King Dedede swole and how he looks without his coat in new Star Allies art - Nintendo WireNintendo Wire HAL 'agonized' over King Dedede's design in Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe | GoNintendo Some developmental info on the character's design in Star Allies in Return to Dream Land Deluxe, which is always a good note to have (Admittedly, the Star Allies source is weaker, but it exists) I also found some TheGamer articles that may be useful given they do have some commentary on him. Obviously not enough to save the article, but they exist. The Best Kirby Villains Of All Time (thegamer.com) Video Game Villains Too Cute To Be Evil (thegamer.com) I also went and did a Scholar check. The sources I had access to didn't really support much, but there were some I couldn't access that did mention him. There might be something there, but I don't think it'll be enough to salvage the article. In any case, I absolutely believe this should be recreated in the future should sources come up, and if anyone finds sources during their BEFORE, I'd be happy to change my vote, but sadly I'm going to have to go with a merge on this one. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom with the presumption that it can be re-created if more coverage is written in the future. I had actually been looking at improving this article after Kirby showed up in the GA list, but a search about half a month ago did not turn up anything substantial enough for Reception. A check on Scholar and Gbooks did not find anything substantial, but there is a slim chance that something useful might show up in a print magazine considering this character has been around for a long time. But at the moment, it looks like there just is not enough significant coverage. The Night Watch (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I belive that eventualy this will pass WP:GNG so I think its best to WP:PRESERVE the page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Riverside Arena: None found prior to nomination. Dorsetonian ( talk ) 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Minnesota . Dorsetonian ( talk ) 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . As an NAHL (and former USHL) venue, it meets the threshold of notability. If it's sources you need, I can easily find any sources you may need. Tom Danson ( talk ) I will happily withdraw if there is a policy which states that NAHL venues are inherently notable. That would, however, be contradictory to WP:ORGSIG ( no company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is ) and WP:NARENA ( sporting arenas, stadia and other venues do not have presumed notability, and are expected to demonstrate notability through meeting the general notability guideline ). Dorsetonian ( talk ) 19:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Dorsetonian beat me to it; WP:NARENA explicitly holds that no matter the importance of the competitions held at a venue, notability still isn't inherited , even were the rink an Olympic venue. In this case, the sole determinant of notability is whether the subject can meet the GNG, and as a small town municipal rink, it would be very unusual for it to have gained more than routine coverage through the local press. No prejudice against changing my position should actual coverage of the subject in "significant detail" surface. Ravenswing 19:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , No sources in the article. Austin runs the arena so they cannot be used. I found a few circular and user generated sources which cannot be used. Anything that doesn't fall into those two only cover basic information, like opening hours or the fact that it is a hockey rink. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 20:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: non-notable building lacking independent third party sources. Flibirigit ( talk ) 12:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Was just about to suggest a redirect to Austin, Minnesota#Sports where the stadium is mentioned then found these: https://www.austindailyherald.com/2015/07/riverside-on-schedule-rink-should-be-ready-for-hockey-this-fall/ and https://www.austindailyherald.com/2010/09/riverside-arena-makes-its-debut/ These two count as a single source as both are from the same publication. Also this: https://history.vintagemnhockey.com/page/show/1254491-riverside-arena . Possibly not enough to meet GNG. I'll wait and see if anything else is found. Rupples ( talk ) 00:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The two newspaper articles are by different authors almost five years apart; they are not the same source. Kablammo ( talk ) 00:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The definition of the source is the publisher itself, not the authors of the pieces. Austin Daily Herald = one source. Ravenswing 00:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing in WP:SOURCE that prevents the use of articles in an independent newspaper as reliable sources; in fact the contrary is true. Kablammo ( talk ) 22:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you mention what you are replying to. This comment almost feels like a straw man with how tangentially related it is to the discussion. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 23:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Austin, Minnesota#Parks and recreation . This humble arena is barely borderline notable (per the newspaper refs above) and it deserves a place in Wikipedia. However, I think a paragraph in the parks and rec section is better than a standalone article -- more easily watched and tended than a stub by itself. This is, after all, another parks and rec facility. After filling in a few more sentences from those refs, I don't think a standalone article will ever grow much unless something dramatic there makes the news (fire, flood, etc.) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge and Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Austin, Minnesota#Parks and recreation gets my support. Oppose delete. There is enough for a paragraph on the stadium from the sources listed in the AfD (now added). Not enough to keep without additional sourcing. Rupples ( talk ) 23:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are contradictory sources on the year the arena was opened. Article says 1973 (unsourced), The Austin Daily Herald states 1983 and here [6] it states 1976. Rupples ( talk ) 00:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorted. Funnily enough it's the previously unsourced year of 1973 that's supported. May be Austin Daily Herald's 1983 is a typo? Rupples ( talk ) 01:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Austin, Minnesota#Parks and recreation per A. B. above, seems like the best solution all around absent significantly more sources. (I will note in passing that the statement made above that two articles in the same newspaper simply "are" the same source is not one that I can find support for in applicable policies and guidelines. WP:SOURCES is clear that "source" can refer to any of four definitions, all of which can affect reliability. Plainly, this is a context-sensitive determination; e.g. nobody would seriously argue that two separate books published by the same university press are automatically the same source. But anyway, that's probably neither here nor there as far as this particular article goes.) -- Visviva ( talk ) 22:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as nominator. Even if this article is deleted, a redirect to Austin, Minnesota in its place would be entirely appropriate as the venue is mentioned there already (in two different sections). At the time of nomination the article was entirely unreferenced and there was nothing that could really be merged; now I have no objection to something along the lines of "merge some and redirect". (The first paragraph is already present - just merge the ref; the specifics of the 2010 and 2015 upgrades might seem a little undue, but adding the fact it was upgraded on those occasions alongside the build date seems entirely appropriate.) Dorsetonian ( talk ) 07:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, and the Parks and recreation section feels like the wrong place to merge into, IMO. That section concerns open spaces and nature reserves. Dorsetonian ( talk ) 08:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Taxonomy of schools: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Outline_of_education#Educational_organizations , where the navbox lists the same items. Reywas92 Talk 14:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Outline_of_education#Educational_organizations : rather than redirect. The "By age" section is pretty much a content fork of Educational stage , but much of the rest of the article contains useful, verifiable information arranged in an encyclopedic way. If there's a better merge target, I'll gladly go with that. Owen× ☎ 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

RISD Blue: It was created in 2022 shortly after the color was adopted during a rebranding initiative, and was passed through NPP by WaddlesJP13 in what looks to me like an extremely questionable call. The only reference is to a RISD page, and the only media coverage I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was this article from The Brown Daily Herald , which is a reliable student publication but whose coverage does not count toward notability given its hyperlocal scope, and in any case is not SIGCOV as the article devotes only a single short paragraph to the color. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 19:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Rhode Island School of Design as nom. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 19:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , Advertising , and Education . {{u| Sdkb }} talk 19:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I find the same, single source. For what it is, Merge the one sentence into the article about the school and be done with it. Or redirect, I'm not fussed about either choice, but this isn't at GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added here , and it's already present in the infobox. The athletics section is a bit of an odd fit, since the color is used beyond just athletics — it's the best option available as it discusses the mascot, a related topic, but I could just as easily be satisfied with no mention beyond the infobox. (School colors and logos are that rare element that I find due for the infobox but unneeded in the body.) {{u| Sdkb }} talk 23:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions . {{u| Sdkb }} talk 21:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge / Redirect per above makes sense to me ( WP:GNG / WP:NOPAGE ). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See also related AfDs for UCLA Blue , Tufts Blue , and BISU Visual Identity . I tagged Carolina blue for notability, as it's a little more borderline. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 01:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Minimal merge (which may already be complete per above commments which would effectively mean a redirect at this point). — siro χ o 01:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

GuideML: The repo itself hasn't been updated in years, and I can't find any evidence that it's being heavily used. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 02:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to h2g2 , appears to be the markup language for that project. [28] . ~ A412 talk! 05:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Connes connection: Returned without improvement. The JAMS article is a good source, but the other two are primary. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 10:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The notability seems clear, mainly because A Connes is a very prominent mathematician and thus what he touches more or less is always notable. This seems to be the case the notability gets inherited. The Cuntz and Quillen reference is certainly a secondary source. I have also just added one. It seems there are enough refernces for me (but I am sure more can be added if necessary). In any case, I don’t see a need for the deletion. —- Taku ( talk ) 10:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think Connes connection might be possible to merge into Noncommutative geometry . -- SilverMatsu ( talk ) 15:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The noncommutative geometry article is about a general topic and so the detailed discussion of connections would be too distracting. It makes sense to isolate technical stuff from a general article. —- Taku ( talk ) 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If it's too distracting, it is possible that create the Connection (noncommutative geometry) by splitting it from the noncommutative geometry and include "the connection in the sense of Connes" in that article. By the way, wikipedia has a Connection (algebraic framework) . -- SilverMatsu ( talk ) 02:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for letting me know about Connection (algebraic framework) . The article is mainly about the commutative case although it has a section that discusses Connes connections in the simplest case (without a reference to cyclic homology). I don't think that article is a good place to discuss a connections in noncommutative geometry, though (quite distracting to those who are interested in the commutative case). -- Taku ( talk ) 10:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to noncommutative geometry . This notion might well be notable (though that does not seem at all obvious to me) but in any case there is currently no content in the article so until someone cares to add some it might as well be a one-line mention+references in that article. jraimbau ( talk ) 06:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a stub so obviously the assumption it can be developed further. In fact, I have just added definition. -- Taku ( talk ) 08:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think this makes much of a difference from before, it's just a formal definition without context. Keeping the stub might be useful if there was some substantial content, but as there is a natural target for a redirect which in addition provides a better context, this seems like a much better option. jraimbau ( talk ) 18:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are more substantial stuff that can be added. I don't think the redirect is actually useful: someone is interested in the definition of a Connes connection cannot find it there (and like said above, I don't think it's a good idea to add such materials to a overview article). Keeping the stub is useful to add more substantial stuff later, since such stuff is inappropriate in the noncommutative geo article. -- Taku ( talk ) 10:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would it be a bad idea to add the briefest content about this extremely niche notion to the more general article, instead of keeping an essentially empty stub? jraimbau ( talk ) 12:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First, my apology for a late reply (was busy in real life). To answer, as I said above, the materials look rather technical. The references cited in the stub have some discussion of, for example, relation to projective modules. That type of materials looks quite out of place to put in the non-commutative geo article. Just because some articles are short, that doesn’t mean the short articles should be merged into some longer articles. It’s like some small niche battle should not be discussed in the history of Japan article, while that battle itself may be sufficiently notable for it to have a Wikipedia article. —- Taku ( talk ) 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Stub articles serve as seeds from which new articles can grow. The growth that occurs is more natural, and leads to better articles, than trying to take one giant article, and splitting it into pieces. How do I know? Once upon a time, more than ten years ago, I made the mistake of splitting a good, but much too long article on projective geometry. It seemed like a good idea, but I am ashamed of the result to this day. It was butchery. The elegant flow and coherent development was converted into factoid pieces-parts, sterile flotsam and jetsam of mathematics. Stubs are seeds. Plant them. Let them grow. It might take a decade or two. That's OK. I've been here for 18 years. Taku has been here almost that long. Don't let WP turn into an old-growth forest, stately and majestic, but with nothing new growing. It's all good. It will work out in the end. (Oh, full disclosure, as I am posting as an anon: I've created and edited a dozen or two articles about the more basic aspects of connections. This includes revising and expanding articles created by Taku. Although this article might seem "specialized", I don't see non-commutative geometry going away or being sidelined. It's been growing for decades, and will continue to.) 67.198.37.16 ( talk ) 20:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge to Alain Connes . // Timothy :: talk 12:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: What merge target is best? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, don't merge, for reasons given above. 67.198.37.16 ( talk ) 15:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Guerillero - looking at the options, the best merge target would be Alain Connes . Onel 5969 TT me 16:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment 2 : I think the notion of Connes connection meets the WP:GNG , but I wonder if it is common to call it a Connes connection ( WP:COMMONNAME ). So, that's why I call this notion: "connection in the sense of Connes", also I think that's why jraimbau says who needs to add some context. Next, I think that Taku is saying that since Connes is a very prominent mathematician, so it's okay to call this notion a Connes connection. So, I don't think the merge target for this article is Alain Connes. -- SilverMatsu ( talk ) 03:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that regarding a merge target the best one would be noncommutative geometry (i think notability of the concept is at least unclear in the present form of the article). jraimbau ( talk ) 14:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to noncommutative geometry . I think this article provides the best context for the text. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

2013 Beninese coup attempt: The article's content only focuses on background and arrests, without any mention of the alleged coup plans. This is even more important considering that the article does not make any mention regarding a trial, proof or convictions. The essay WP:COUP is worth remembering too for the same reason. Likewise, the page was previously deleted as a redirect in 2022 ( Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#2017 Equatoguinean coup d'état attempt ). NoonIcarus ( talk ) 12:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Politics , and Africa . NoonIcarus ( talk ) 12:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 13:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . An alleged coup doesn't quite fit in the routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities described by WP:NOTNEWS . At the same time, the nom is right in that information about this event is scarce. However, there's a good paragraph on the alleged coup and its consequences in Freedom House's 2014 Freedom in the World , and there are a few more sources like here [19] and on the French article , which IMO make this coup pass WP:SUSTAINED by some margin (coverage is from March to October in the press, and Freedom House comes out in 2014). The alternative would be to merge this content elsewhere, although this standalone page seems the most appropriate place for this information to remain for now. Pilaz ( talk ) 01:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Thomas Boni Yayi#Presidency , where the event is not really addressed. Not really much of a coup attempt IMHO, although we do have a whole article about that time someone threw a shoe at George W. Bush, which seems on par but obviously WP:OSE . Folly Mox ( talk ) 18:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Folly Mox. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 20:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as WP:NOPAGE seems about right for the current structure of the two articles. While I agree SUSTAINED is probably satisfied, I think the COUP essay does have a good point here, in that reliable sources seem to hedge on calling it a coup attempt (alleged, scare quotes, etc). If multiple RS were to call it an attempted coup in their own voice, then I'd consider keep, though NOPAGE still might argue the two topics are better together. — siro χ o 03:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Captain Miller (soundtrack): Five singles were released from the film and nothing else. The music section at Captain Miller (film) should certainly suffice. J04n ( talk page ) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India . J04n ( talk page ) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Captain Miller (film) . I think the nominator is correct about what went wrong in the first AfD last week. There are indeed plenty of sources but they are about individual songs that have emerged from the film. None indicate that this collection of songs will be released as a stand-alone soundtrack album. In other words, we can confirm that the songs exist, but the article under discussion here has been set up as an album article so that is what needs to be confirmed in the sources. Until that happens, the songs can be described at the film's article. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Allow me to ping @ Hey man im josh , Wcquidditch , Geschichte , Kailash29792 , and Ozzie10aaaa : and Tame Rhino . I may only speak for myself but nobody said the article was about an album ; it's a detailed page about the soundtrack and that soundtrack received coverage. I still think a keep is OK, and although I am still not opposed to redirect, see my comment at last Afd about it. Still opposed to deletion anyway, as nominator and Doomsdayer520 also seem to be, if I understand well. In general, I don't think that such speedy renominations are a good idea unless there's a really urgent problem, but maybe that's just me. If we are looking for a relevant guideline, maybe WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material applies, that states "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings, and related items) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Which seems to be the case. But one can also consider the music was released as part of the film. Music in Indian cinema has, as everyone knows, a quite specific role. I am not shocked by a standalone detailed article here. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : the infoboxes of the article and the main page about the film do indeed indicate "Album"; but that can be easily corrected. A note can even be added indicating that no album was released, only singles. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep per Mushy Yank (I believe it is OK as well)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk ) 19:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For some policy based input Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment from nominator: merger to Captain Miller (film) is the ideal outcome. The page is written as if there is a soundtrack album which there is not, just 5 singles that have been released from the film. I do not believe that reworking the page and titling it 'Music from Captain Miller (film)' is appropriate. The majority of the sources are reviews for the film that merely mention the music or announcements of the release of one of the singles. J04n ( talk page ) 17:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Further comment: as to WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material , there is no significant coverage of the soundtrack as I detailed above. J04n ( talk page ) 17:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I already voted and I'm the outlier, but I will agree with J04n again. The "keep" voters above have provided no convincing evidence that this is an album . An album is a stand-alone item that qualifies for a Wikipedia article if notable, but a group of songs with a common association are not an album or any other stand-alone item. Therefore we have a violation of the unreleased material guideline because no album has been described as something that has been or will be released . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 19:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the film article as above. As a general proposition I'm not in favor of speedy renoms, but it is not disruptive in this case, and I do agree that the previous discussion failed to grapple with the core issue. The article is engaged in a bit of OR by presenting this as an album - it is the collected released songs from the film, and should be presented as such at that article. I see no sourcing that deals with the music collectively apart from the film, so we should not be the first to make that distinction. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Karin Kanzuki: While gameplay can be a factor for a character's notability, it doesn't show an overarching importance beyond the game itself, or any impact towards it. Other mentions are trivial, not really establishing any importance or examination. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Per nom. A mention in NPR is surprising, and there's also a Destructoid article here , but everything else feels rather press-release like. I am not seeing the significant coverage needed for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the sources indicate the character's notability and popularity, especially in the reception. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I went through your votes at afd, such as at Gouken's and Yuuki's AFDs. Why do you keep providing weak rationale for almost every AFD??? Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 16:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE . You've got to be more specific if you want your stance to be seriously considered by the closing admin. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will keep this short as I do not want to make this AFD about me; I will be honest, I had intended to give longer explanations but due to some exams I have had less time. I was under the impression that my arguments were good enough, as I had seen some AFD arguments which were full of just one word answers/policies/essay links or "per x user" or "per above", and I think that explanations were short but reasonable enough. For some, as the explanations on the notability of sources had been explained above, I did not want to be repetitive. Additionally, it is not "almost every AFD", there are hundreds of current and past AFDs that I have not commented on - I do not look at all of them, only some, but I only comment on articles I think are notable/able to be improved. If you would like to talk about this more, I can send an email or discuss on my talk page. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 00:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE . As the guideline says "A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, or may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are." That also includes making sure it is not just vaguely waving at "sources" but detailing which ones support the rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am aware that it is not a vote - that is why I have always provided explanation, though I was unaware that they were not long enough. But I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that AFD is not done by the number votes, but rather the quality of ! votes. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 00:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the problem boils down to the fact that you can't really do these vague "keep per user" or "keep its notable" stances when you're the first person to advocate a specific stance in the discussion. That really only works when someone has already written a well reasoned, detailed response that you agree with. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives which in particular? -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition to the sources mentioned above, the main source that stuck out to me was [2] , as it is clearly independent, and whilst it is part of a list, it does take about the character in detail. [3] also stuck out to me as it talks in depth about the character, as does [4] though to a lesser extent. I saw them as independent as the websites are not focussed on Street Fighter but the video game genre. Additionally, many of the list articles showing the character's popularity do strengthen the notability - on their own I would be on the fence, but in addition to the others, I think it meets GNG. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 00:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives Well the last one there, if I may, is essentially a press release, and not discussing the character per se. Additionally the redbull entry is discussing the gameplay of multiple characters in the context of Street Fighter V based off the player's perception. There's a possible issue of him being a reliable source of course, but a bigger matter is it's not showing importance separate from the game itself. Think of, say, someone using articles like these to justify Killer Instinct characters. Not trying to shoot you down, just explain the issues as I'm seeing them. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ps Blog could qualify as a primary source. Red Bull would be okay for sourcing purposes, but a list of characters tends to prove the characters as a whole are notable rather than a single one. There's a reason listicles are considered very dicey. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Despite liking Karin, and not thinking it's quite as weak as some merged Street Fighter articles, I feel that it is unfortunately lacking in both significant coverage and evidence of notability. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 08:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Article is in weak state. It needs more that has been discussed primarily about the character. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 09:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm. This isn't WP:SIGCOV . It's probably better to follow the coverage and include it with the rest of the series or characters. Characters of the Street Fighter series could be a good target, and I would suggest some development/reception information going there too. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The two sources in here and the Anime News Network source are good. Karin seemed to get a decent amount of attention for her return after a long absence. The creation section has some interesting details too. I think these sources satisfy the WP:GNG . MoonJet ( talk ) 05:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually think that the Anime News Network source is great, and the Destructoid source is decent. With the NPR source, however, it seems to be summing up that she is popular and that she ranked highly on polls, the NPR source itself doesn't seem to say much. If there was a third source on the caliber of at least Destructoid, I might change my mind. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

A.B.R. High School: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL . User Memer ( chat ) Tribs 21:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Bangladesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unable to find sources that would help this school meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP . Redirect to Barisal#Education or List of educational institutions in Barisal District after adding this to the list. - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 02:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] merge to List of educational institutions in Barisal District . I agree there are insufficient sources, in English/Bengali, to demonstrate notability . The cited source states the year the school was established, which is a common datum in lists of schools, so a merge (albeit trivial) of that information is worth while. We also know the coordinates. Would that be a second useful thing to merge into the list? -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 04:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (parlez) 17:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of educational institutions in Barisal District . There's not a lot to move but I also can't find any sources in English to demonstrate notability and the list doesn't have it yet, so it would be worth adding it there. Shaws username ( talk ) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge